X 


& 

^v 

.^T 

ra 

i? 

1c 

3 

4 

(0 

-»*-. 

1£ 

I 

r-*» 

t-3 

Q. 

#W 

M— 

§ 

fc 

O 

£> 

5 

*** 

& 

<u 

o 

c 

t» 

o 

bfl 

■ 

En 
O 

3 

5 

^ 

& 

£ 

.*o 

«•> 

M 

(0 

*k£ 

<^ 

tf 

CO 

& 

P4 

2 

<3 
Oh 

<3* 

SI 

Si 

I 

-a 

c 

8 

£ 

en 

a 
S 

\» 

CL 

THE 


TRIAL  OP  MR.  PEDOBAPTIST 


AN    INQUIRY 


CONCERNING  THE  SCRIPTURAL  ACTION 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


By    A/SWARTZ, 


HARRISBURG: 

A.  BOYD  HAMILTON,  75  MARKET  STREET- 
1856, 


Entered  according  to  an  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858,  by 

A.    SWAETZ,     ' 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


T<5> 


TZi. 


PREFACE.  J? 


The  following  pages,  prepared  with  the  hope  of  con- 
tributing, in  an  humble  way,  toward  the  settlement  of  a 
question  which  has  long  disturbed  the  Christian  Church, 
were  originally  intended  for  publication  in  the  columns 
of  a  religious  newspaper.  By  the  solicitation  of  many 
friends,  the  author  has  been  induced  to  consent  to  their 
publication  in  book  form,  and  now  sends  them  forth, 
with  the  hope  that  the  words  of  encouragement  which 
have  been  spoken  by  those  who  have  perused  the  manu- 
script, may  not  fail  of  endorsement  by  some  who  may 
read  these  pages. 

The  reader  will  discover  that  many  of  the  thoughts 
which  are  here  presented3  are  familiar,  and  that  in  many 
instances,  the  language  of  other  writers  is  largely  em- 
ployed. If  any  excuse,  other  than  the  fact  that  the  main 
features  of  the  subject  are  becoming  familiar,  is  deemed 
necessary  for  the  pursuit  of  this  course,  the  author  hopes 
it  will  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  present  manner  of 
treating  the  subject  is  such  as  calls  for  extensive  quota- 
tions from  those  who  have  preceded  him,  and  who  ere 
considered  as?  authorities  upon  the  question  under  dis- 
eussion. 


IV  F&EPACE, 

In  excuse  of  faults  beyond  those  incident  to  a  first 
attempt  at  authorship,  all  the  usual  pleas  might  be  pre» 
sented,  with  more  than  usual  truth.  But  he  feels  that 
the  good  wishes  of  friends  will  render  such  a  eourse 
unnecessary  with  them,  and  that  the  criticisms  of  oppo- 
nents could  hardly  be  softened  by  any  statements  which 
could  here  be  made.  He,  therefore,  commits  the  work 
to  the  public  as  it  is,  hoping  it  will  give  no  just  occasion 
of  offence  to  any  one,  and  that  it  may  prove  a  help  to 
many  inquirers  after  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord. 

To  give  .fair  representations  of  both  sides  of  the 
question  in  dispute,  and  to  promote  harmony  among 
Christians,  has  been  honestly  meant  5  and  the  effort  is 
humbly  commended  to  the  blessing  of  God, 

Mount  Joy,  Pa.,  Oct.  1,  1856 


w 


■ 


TRIAL    OF    MR.   PEDOBAPTIST. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  TRIAL. 

Mr.  Pedobaptist  had  long  been  suspected  for  alter- 
ing two  fundamental  laws  of  Christian  society,  and  the 
usage  under  their  first  appointment.  This  alteration  is 
said  to  have  been  the  primary  cause  of  the  injurious 
division,  that  has  existed  among  the  citizens  of  this 
great  Commonwealth  for  a  long  time,  to  the  detriment  of 
the  public  peace.  The  friends  of  Mr.  Baptist  published 
him  on  the  wings  of  every  wind,  as  guilty  of  these  sac- 
rilegious acts.  The  friends  of  Mr.  Pedobaptist,  on  the 
contrary,  declared  everywhere  as  zealously,  that  he  was 
entirely  innocent,  and  that  the  charges  preferred  by  Mr. 
Baptist  were  false.  There  were  many  citizens  who  jus- 
tified the  conduct  of  Mr.  Pedobaptist,  on  the  ground  of 
expediency.  The  citizens  who  were  not  identified  with 
either  of  the  above  parties,  took  no  part  in  the  contro- 
versy, and  therefore  expressed  no  judgment. 

To  test  his  innocence,  which  he  openly  and  boldly  de- 
clared to  all,  an  appeal  to  the  highest  legal  tribunal  in 
the  land  was  necessary.     Its  judgment  alone  could  settle 


D  THE    TRIAL    OF 

this  mooted  question  finally.  Mr.  Baptist  professed  to 
be  exceedingly  glad  that  an  opportunity  was  offered  to 
bring  him  before  this  tribunal,  in  order  to  have  the  con- 
troversy settled  by  its  decision.  He  said  that  often  be- 
fore this  time  he  had  urged  an  investigation  5  but  Mr. 
Pedobaptist  (as  he  declared)  placed  himself  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Court, 

LEGAL  PROCEEDINGS    COMMENCED    AGAINST  MS.  PEDOBAPTIST. 

Mv.  Baptist  commenced  legal  proceedings  against  the 
aliened  offender,  by  preferring  the  charge  of  High.  Trea- 
son against  the  goveriwient.  Mr.  Pedobaptist  was  ai rested 
by  the  officer  of  the  law,  and  by  him  returned  to  the 
Court  fur  trial.  When  the  fact  of  his  arrest  was  made 
known  to  the  public,  it  rocked  the  whole  nation  with 
more  than  earthquake  violence.  The  excitement  it  crea- 
ted appeared  ominous  of  a  fearful  calamity  to  the  public 
weal.  But  the  return  of  the  second  sober  thought  of 
the  people,  calmed  down  the  fevered  excitement  of  his 
friends,  and  they  looked  forward  to  his  triumphant  ac- 
quittal for  a  complete  refutation  of  all  that  Mr.  Baptist 
and  his  friends  had  circulated  against  him.  And  further. 
they  determined  that  upon  his  acquittal  he  should  seek 
a  full  legal  remuneration  from  Mr.  Baptist,  for  the  injury 
his  character  had  suffered  by  these  reports. 

As  the  time  for  the  meeting  of  the  regular  session  of 
the  Supreme  Court  drew  near,  the  excitement  in  the  pub- 
lic mind  was  renewed  with  unabated  interest.  The  trial 
was  the   topic  of  exciting  conversation    throughout  the 


MR.  PEDOBAPTlST.  7 

country.  The  reason  of  this  overwhelming  interest 
manifested  by  the  parties  implicated,  may  be  found  in 
the  nature  of  the  issue  to  be  tried,  and  the  result  of  the 
judgment  upon  the  public  well-being. 

THE  COURT  IN  SESSION  AND  ITS  ACTION  ON  THE  CASE. 

The  long  expected  day  arrived  for  the  meeting  of  the 
Court.  The  people  were  found  in  crowds  about  the 
place  of  meeting,  long  before  the  appointed  hour  for  the 
opening  of  the  Court  ;  and  when  the  hour  was  announced 
by  the  ringing  of  the  bell,  the  room  was  soon  filled  to  over- 
flowing. The  announcement  was  made,  as  soon  as  the 
Judges  had  taken  their  seats,  that  the  Court  was  prepared 
to  proceed  to  business.  At  this  moment,  a  death-like 
silence  reigned  throughout  the  mighty  concourse  assem- 
bled. The  public  heart  beat  heavily,  when  in  delivering 
his  charge  to  the  grand  jury,  the  President  Judge  spoke 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  crime  with  which  the  Pri- 
sioner  was  charged  in  the  return  made  to  the  Court. — 
After  thfc  close  of  the  charge,  all  present  waited  with 
palpitating  interest  until  the  grafid  jury  would  pass  upon 
the  bills  sent  to  them  against  the  Prisoner,  and  report  to 
the  Court  their  judgment. 

After  hours  of  painful  suspense  to  the  multitude,  the 
crier  of  the  Court  announced  the  coming  of  the  jury. 
Breathless  silence  brooded  over  the  assembty,  when  the 
bills  were  handed  to  the  Court  and  read.  The  presiding 
Judge  announced  in  a  clear  and  distinct  tone  of  voice, 
that  two  true  bills   were    found   against   the  Prisoner 


JT  THE*   TRIAL    OF 

This  announcement  was  hailed  with  signs  of  joyful  tri- 
umph by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Baptist.  The  friends  of 
the  Prisoner  stood  appalled,  when  the  action  of  the  jury 
was  declared  to  the  crowd  assembled,  for  they  had  ex- 
pected the  bills  to  be  returned  to  the  Court  ignored. 
However,  they  still  congratulated  each  other  with  the 
hope  of  a  final  verdict  in  his  favor. 

The  first  bill  charged  the  Prisoner  at  the  bar  with  the 
crime  of  High  Treason  against  the  government,  for 
changing  the  action  of  Christian  Baptism  from  immersion 
of  the  subject  in  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  as  it 
was  commanded  by  the  Author  of  our  institutions,  to 
sprinkling  and  pouring  water  on  the  subject,  in  the  same 
name. 

The  second  bill  charged  him  with  the  crime  of  admin- 
istering this  ordinance  to  Infants,  contrary  to  the  funda- 
mental law  of  this  Commonwealth,  as  found  in  the  28th 
chapter  of  the  Constitution  as  recorded  by  Matthew  : — 
"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
1  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo  !  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

THE  PRISONER  PUT  ON  TRIAL. 

"VThen  the  day  to  arraign  the  Prisoner  had  arrived,  the 
entire  population,  with  the  multitude  that  had  come  from 
all  parts  of  the  country  to  witness  the  trial,  were  found 
bending  their  way  to  the  place  where  the  trial  was  to  be 


MR.  PEUOBAJPTIST.  9 

conducted.  Many  of  them  were  deeply  interested  in 
the  issue  of  this  case,  for  it  involved  their  own  and  the 
loyalty  of  many  of  the  most  respectable  citizens  to  the 
government. 

The  court  room  was  crowded  to  excess.  A  deep 
silence  prevailed  throughout  the  throng  assembled,  when 
the  Prisoner  was  called  upon  to  plead  to  the  first  indict- 
ment, for  he  was  to  be  tried  on  each  bill  separately — this 
privilege  the  law  permitting  him  to  claim.  With  a 
trembling  voice  he  entered  the  plea  of  'Snot  guilty." 
The  Prisoner's  manner  on  tiiis  occasion  betrayed  symp- 
toms of  uneasiness,  and  a  feeling  of  danger.  That 
boasted  confidence  of  his  innocence,  which  had  sustained 
him  up  to  this  moment,  forsook  him  in  the  crisis,  and 
the  public  were  left  to  conjecture  the  cause  of  the  sud- 
den change  in  his  conduct. 

Before  a  jury  to  try  the  case  was  called,  the  following 
question  was  ordered  by  the  Court  to  be  proposed  to  each 
juryman,  previously  to  his  being  sworn:  "Have  you 
formed  or  expressed  an  opinion,  as  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  Prisoner  at  the  bar  1" 

After  considerable  trouble  and  delay  in  finding  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  jurors,  who  were  not  committed  against 
or  for  the  Prisoner,  the  following  gentlemen  were  em- 
panneled  to  try  the  case  : 

Messrs.  Impartiality,  Sincerity,  Honesty,  Truthful, 
Charity,  Landmark,  Confidence,  Hopeful,  Steadfast,  Jus- 
tiee,  Mercy  and  Fairplay. 

All  parties  expressed  their  satisfaction  with  and  con- 


10  TILE    TK1AL  OF 

fidence  in  the  persons  selected  to  determine  the  impor- 
tant subject  they  were  to  pas&  their  judgment  upon.  All 
felt  sure,  from  the  positions  these  persons  occupied  before 
the  public,  that  the  controversy  could  not  have  been  left 
in  safer  hands  for  a  settlement. 

The  Court  ordered  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  to 
be  prepared  to  open  the  case  to  the  jury,  after  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Court  in  the  afternoon. 

On  the  re-assembling  of  the  Court,  the  counsel  for  the 
prosecution  arose,  and  opened  the  case  with  the  following 
address: 

If  the  Court  please,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  are  now 
called  upon,  on  your  oaths  and  affirmations,  to  determine 
a  case  which  has  been  the  subject  of  angry  controversy 
between  the  plaintiff  and  defendant  for  a  long  time. — 
Their  warm  and  bitter  contentions  have  greatly  disturbed 
the  peace  of  society,  by  creating  hostility  between  the 
father  and  the  son — brother  opposing  brother  and  arraying 
citizen  against  citizen.  If  this  state  of  violence  and  dis- 
cord is  permitted  to  continue  among  us,  it  will  endanger 
the  perpetuity  of  our  time  honored  Christianity,  as  we 
have  received  it  from  its  Author.  The  day  has  come, 
when  this  tempest-tossed  community  demands  the  removal 
of  these  premonitions  of  coming  dissolution .  The  eountry 
looks  to  you  with  confidence  for  a  sufficient  antidote. — 
Shall  it  look  in  vain  1  The  remedy  for  these  evils  is  at 
your  disposal,  and  your  verdict  will  be  an  answer  to  this 
momentous  question.  In  this  answer  is  bound  up  the 
liope  of  our  people 


US,.  PBDOBAl'TIST.  11 

Gentlemen,  the  Prisoner  at  the  bar  stands  before  you 
charged  in  the  indictment,  with  one  of  the  highest  crimes 
known  to  our  Jaws.  This  charge  involves  his  honor, 
character  and  life.  Its  investigation  demands  at  your 
hands  the  most  enduring  patience  and  impartial  attention, 
to  all  that  shall  be  offered  on  this  occasion  for  his  inno- 
cence or  against  it.  You  have  placed  yourselves  under 
the  obligation  of  an  oath  to  decide  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  Prisoner,  from  the  evidence  we  shall 
offer  as  proof  of  the  charge  alleged  against  him,  and  the 
application  of  the  law  as  laid  down  to  you  by  the  Court. 
To  the  result  of  your  judgment  you  have  no  right  to 
look  forward ;  it  is  the  business  of  the  law  and  its  admin- 
istrators to  attend  to  the  result  of  your  verdict. 

It  will  now  be  your  duty,  to  dispossess  your  minds  of 
all  prepossessions  on  the  subject  upon  which  you  are  to 
pronounce  a  judgment,  and  look  at  the  case  as  if  you  had 
not,  before  the  present  occasion,  been  to  any  extent 
acquainted  with  it.  I  am  satisfied  from  your  well  known 
characters  and  intelligence,  acknowledged  by  all  the  peo- 
ple, that  you  will  do  the  Prosecutor  and  the  Prisoner  that 
justice  which  you  would  like  dealt  out  to  yourselves,  were 
you  in  their  positions.  1  am  also  satisfied  you  will  render 
a  verdict,  from  the  evidence  offered,  which  all  honest 
men  in  our  country  will  approve,  and  that  they  will 
secure  its  execution  by  the  administrators  of  the 
Jaw. 

The  importance  of  the  result  of  this  trial  to  the  country, 
has  collected  together,  at  this  place,  a  vast  concourse  of 
our  people,  who  express  a  deep  interest  in  the  decision 


12  THE    TRIAL    OF 

of  the  grave  question  which  is  now  committed  to  you. 
The  whole  nation  looks  to  you  at  this  time  as  the  only 
anchor  of  its  present  safety,  for  the  weal  or  woe  of  our 
country  depends  upon  the  decision  you  will  make  on  this 
occasion.  A  more  important  question  was  never  left  to 
a  jury  to  determine.  We  are  satisfied  you  realize  the 
weight  of  the  responsibility  which  rests  upon  you.  I 
have  no  doubt  you  have  sufficient  courage  to  act  when 
the  time  for  action  arrives,  let  that  action  be  for  the 
Prisoner  or  against  him. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  purity  and  the  honor  of  the 
law  must  be  maintained  and  vindicated  by  an  impartial 
verdict.  Justice  must  be  measured  out  with  an  even 
hand,  let  the  stroke  it  inflicts  fall  where  it  may.  Chris- 
tian institutions  must  be  maintained  unmutilated  by  a 
foreign  hand,  or  the  whole  framework  of  Christian 
society  will  fall  to  pieces.  Unless  you  sustain  the  law 
of  Christian  Baptism,  in  its  original  import,  anarchy, 
rebellion  and  treason  will  flourish  in  open  day.  What 
then  will  become  of  that  venerated  system  of  government 
for  which  our  fathers  periled  their  fortunes,  honors  and 
lives  1  It  will  soon  be  buried  in  ruin  by  these  agitations, 
and  only  be  remembered  with  painful  regret  by  coming 
generations.  An  event  of  this  kind  we  all  should  depre- 
cate as  a  direful  calamity ;  for  it  would  be  the  darkest 
page  upon  the  annals  of  history.  This  burning  page  of 
shame,  would  live  forever  as  a  memorial  of  the  folly  of 
the  guardians  of  the  law,  in  forsaking  justice  in  the  hour 
of  peril  and  danger. 


MR.  PKOOBAPTIST.  13 

Gentlemen,  before  a  calamity  of  such  a  heart-sickening 
character  shall,  by  your  verdict,  fall  on  this  great  Com- 
monwealth, the  light  and  hope  of  all  nationalities,  it  will 
be  well  for  us  to  recall  the  number  of  lives  and  fortunes 
which  this  government  cost,  that  it  might  be  transmitted 
to  us  as  the  birth-right  of  humanity.  Our  ancestors  well 
knew  it  to  be  the  ark  of  our  safety — the  citadel  of  our 
strength — the  temple  of  our  proudest  hopes,  and  that 
around  its  spires  would  play  the  glory  of  Jehovah,  in 
hopeful  expectation  to  all  coming  time.  They  trusted 
that  our  sons  and  daughters,  with  rejoicing  hope,  would 
be  found  worshipping  at  its  altars  through  coming  ages, 
and  enjoying  its  manifold  blessings.  Can  you,  in  your 
action  on  this  case,  blot  out  forever  these  invaluable 
immunities,  so  dearly  purchased  by  our  fathers?  Even 
infidelity  is  not  so  unbelieving,  as  to  cherish  for  a  single 
moment,  an  apprehension  so  appalling  to  our  patriotism. 

Christian  institutions,  preserved  from  human  contami- 
nation, would  always  be  to  us  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day 
and  a  pillar  of  fire  by  night,  conducting  us  to  that  high 
destination  in  the  scale  ©f  moral  being  that  will  make  us 
equal  with  the  angels  of  God. 

Into  your  hands  are  now  committed  the  well-being 
and  happiness  of  this  country,  and  the  hope  of  coming 
generations  depends  on  the  judgment  you  will  render. 
You  will  patiently  indulge  me  with  a  careful  hearing  of 
the  principles  of  law,  applicable  to  this  case,  and  the 
evidence  we  shall  offer.  Let  us  approach  a  subject  so 
grave  and  important  to  us  all,  with  all  sincerity  and 
'        -,;=!;hr    whereby  this  day's   proceedings  may  be- 


14j  THE   TRIAL   OF 

come  an  honor  to  ourselves,  to  our  country  and  to  our 
laws. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  LAW  APPLICABLE  TO  THIS  CONTROVERSY. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  lay  down  some  incontestible 
facts,  that  shall  be  to  us  a  beacon-light  to  guide  us  in  the 
investigation  of  this  case.  We  invoke  your  particular 
attention  to  their  presentation,  and  we  do  also  most 
earnestly  challenge  the  counsel  of  the  defendant  to  invali- 
date their  soundness  and  application  to  this  dispute.  If 
they  cannot  be  contested  successfully  by  him,  we  shall 
claim  for  them  a  power  to  determine  the  weight  of  the 
evidence  to  be  offered,  and  also  the  judgment  to  be  formed 
of  this  controversy. 

If  the  Court  please,  (addressing  the  Court,)  your  careful 
attention  is  called  to  the  following  facts,  or  principles  of 
law,  applicable  to  the  issue  joined  by  the  parties  now 
before  you,  calling  for  a  legal  adjudication: 

1.  The  word  used  in  the  Constitution  of  this  Common- 
wealth, to  designate  the  act  in  Christian  Baptism,  is  not 
Bapto,  but  its  derivative  Baptizo.  On  the  meaning  of  this 
last  word,  hinges  the  whole  controversy  now  before  us. 
To  show  that  this  distinction  is  well  founded,  we  will  read 
from  two  reliable  authorities,  whose  testimony  will  place 
the  fact  beyond  dispute.  Professor  Stuart,  himself  a  friend 
of  Mr.  Pedobaptist,  says  on  this  point:  "In  the  New 
Testament,  however,  there  is  one  other  marked  distinc- 
tion between  the  use  of  these  verbs.  Baptizo  and  its 
derivatives  are  exclusively  employed,  when  the  rite  of 
baptism  is  to  be  designated  in  any  form  whatever  5  and  in 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  15 

this  case,  Bapto  seems  to  be  purposely, as  well  as  habitu- 
ally, excluded." — Stuart  on  Baptism,  p.  51.  Carson  says, 
p.  18,  "this  difference  is,  Bapto  is  never  used  to  denote 
the  ordinance  of  baptism."  An  examination  of  the  New 
Testament  use  of  these  words,  will  be  an  unanswerable 
confirmation  of  their  testimony.  We  shall  hold  this 
distinction  to  be  settled  beyond  dispute,  until  an  excep- 
tion shall  be  found. 

If  we  are  compelled  by  the  counsel  for  the  Prisoner,  to 
go  into  the  investigation  of  the  use  of  Bapto,  we  are 
prepared  to  show,  by  unexceptionable  authorities,  that  its 
literal  acceptation  is  to  dip  and  dye.  To  undertake  to 
prove  this,  by  incontestible  examples  from  its  use  in  the 
language,  is,  we  think,  at  this  time  unnecessary,  because 
the  word  is  never  found  in  the  law  of  baptism.  We 
wish  it  distinctly  understood,  once  for  all,  that  these 
words,  Bapto  and  Baptizo,  are  not  confounded  when  this 
institution  (baptism)  is  named  or  spoken  of. 

2.  Baptism,  as  commanded  by  the  Saviotir,  is  a  Positive 
Institution,  and  not  a  Moral  one.  There  is  a  plain  dis- 
tinction, recognized  by  theological  writers  of  the  highest 
authority  in  this  kingdom,  existing  between  positive 
and  moral  duties.  In  moral  duties  we  can  see  the  reason 
why  they  are  commanded,  because  they  are  suited  to  our 
nature,  and  to  the  relations  which  we  sustain  to  the 
Author  of  our  being  and  to  others  around  us.  The 
necessities  of  our  being  demand  their  performance.  In 
positive  duties  we  observe  not  the  reason  of  their  per- 
formance, previous  to  their  enactment.  They  rest  entirely 
upon  the  express  will  of  the  Lawgiver.     In  confirmation 


It)  THE    TKIAL    OF 

of  this  distinction  we  shall  read  from  Booth? 's  Pedobaptism 
Examined,  vol.  1,  a  number  of  authorities  selected  from 
among  the  friends  of  the  Prisoner,  who  will  be  found 
teaching  this  distinction  plainly. 

Dr.  J.  G.  King:  "Positive  duties  having  no  obligation 
in  the  reason  of  things,  can  have  no  foundation  but  in 
the  express  words  of  the  institution,  from  which  alone 
they  derive  their  authority." — Rites  and  Cerem.  of  the 
Greek  Church. 

Dr.  Doddridge:  "  Those  are  called  positive  institutions 
or  precepts,  which  are  not  founded  upon  any  reasons 
known  to  those  to  whom  they  are  given  or  discoverable 
by  them,  but  which  are  observed  merely  because  some 
superior  has  commanded  them," — Lectures,  Definit.  lxxi. 
p.  23S. 

Dr.  Owen:  "Positive  institutions  are  the  free  effects 
of  the  will  of  God,  depending  originally  and  solely  on 
revelation,  and  which,  therefore,  have  been  various  and 
actually  changed." — Discourse — Holy  Spirit, Yl.  1.  Chap- 
ter iii. 

Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  :  "  Those  laws,  whose  obligation 
arises  from  the  nature  of  things  and  from  the  general 
state  and  nature  of  mankind,  as  well  as  from  God's  posi- 
tive revealed  will,  are  called  moral  laws.  Others,  whose 
obligation  depends  merely  upon  God's  positive  and  arbi- 
trary institution,  are  not  moral:  such  as  the  ceremonial 
laws  and  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  about  the  two  sacra- 
ments."— Sermons,  p.  232.     Hartford,  1780. 

Bp.  Butler :  "  Positive  precepts  are  precepts  the  reasons 
of  which  we  do  not  see.     Moral  duties  arise  out  of  the 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  17 

nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to  external  command ; 
positive  duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case, 
but  from  external  command ;  nor  would  they  be  duties 
at  all  were  it  not  for  such  command." — Analogy  of  Reli' 
gion,  Part  II.  Chap.  i. 

Bp.  Taylor :  "  All  institutions  sacramental,  and  posi- 
tive laws,  depend  not  upon  the  nature  of  the  things  them- 
selves, but  they  depend  wholly  on  the  will  of  the  Law- 
giver." 

Bp.  Burnet:  "Sacraments are  positive  precepts,  which 
are  to  be  measured  only  by  the  institution,  in  which  there 
is  no  room  left  for  us  to  carry  them  any  further." — Ex- 
posit.  39  Articles. 

Dr.  Goodman :  "  The  term  Institution  implies  a  setting 
up  de  novo,  or  the  appointing  that  to  become  a  duty 
which  was  not  knowable,  or  at  least  not  known  to  be  so 
before  it  became  so  appointed.  For  this  word,  Institu- 
tion, is  that  which  we  use  to  express  a  positive  command 
by,  in  opposition  to  that  which  is  moral  in  the  strictest 
sense  and  of  natural  obligation." — Preserv.  against  Popery, 
Title  8,  p.  7. 

To  these  names  we  could  add  a  host  of  others  of  equal 
learning  and  authority,  who  are  found  also  teaching  this 
distinction  between  moral  and  positive  institutions,  and 
declaring  baptism  to  belong  to  positive  precepts  and  not 
to  moral  ones.  All  theological  authorities  we  have  con- 
sulted, acquiesce  cordially  in  the  doctrine  of  the  above 
writers. 

3.  All  we  can  know  of  the  will  of  the  Lawgiver,  when  posi- 
tive duties  are  required,  is  to  be  found  in  the  xnords  employed 


fS  THE    TRIAL    OY 

to  designate  the  act  or  acts  to  be  done.  The  words  in  the 
law,  about  which  this  dispute  finds  its  origin,  are,  as 
announced  by  Peter,  Acts,  n.  38,  "  be  baptized  everyone 
of  you."  From  these  words  only  can  we  learn  our  duty, 
for  they  are  the  only  mediums  of  knowledge  to  us  of  the 
Divine  will.  This  is  to  us  self-evident.  There  is  no 
other  process  within  our  reach  for  the  acquisition  of  this 
knowledge.  Deny  this  to  be  self-evident  and  you  place 
a  knowledge  of  the  Divine  will  beyond  our  power.  The 
distinction  ascertained  between  moral  and  positive  pre* 
cepts,  imperatively  demands  the  adoption  of  this  process 
to  ascertain  God's  will  when  positive  duties  are  required. 
The  enacting  word  in  baptism,  which  designates  the  act 
to  be  performed,  is  baptizo,  and  its  meaning,  like  that  of 
all  the  words  associated  with  it,  is  to  be  determined  by 
a  common  sense  process,  and  this  process  alone  will  show 
its  true  import.     We  shall  proceed  to  elucidate  it: 

4.  The  mind  of  the  Lawgiver,  when  positive  duties  are 
required,  can  only  be  learned  by  ascertaining  the  literal  or 
popular  meaning  of  the  words  in  the  laic.  This  must  be 
his  meaning  of  necessity,  unless  the  Lawgiver  in  the 
law  teaches  another  signification.  That  he  does  employ 
the  words  in  an  unusual  sense,  may  not  be  inferred  but 
must  be  plainly  announced.  Without  this  authority  for 
an  unusual  interpretation,  we  are  compelled  to  abide  by 
the  literal  meaning.  In  the  law  of  baptism,  we  have 
not  the  remotest  intimation  that  a  different  meaning  from 
the  literal  is  to  be  given  to  the  wTords  employed.  Until 
there  is  some  veritable  evidence  offered  to  support  another 
meaning,  the  christian  public  is  bound  to  take  only  the 


?.IR,    PEPOBAPTIST.  19 

common  signification  of  the  words  to  be  the  Lawgiver's, 
We  shall  now  read  from  the  best  authorities  in  the  land 
in  support  of  this  law  of  interpretation. 

Sir  William  Blackstone  says :  "  It  is  with  the  pro- 
per and  unfigurative,  and  not  with  fanciful  and  rhetorical 
meaning  of  words,  we  have  to  do  in  all  positive  institu- 
tions." Also:  "  The  words  of  a  law  are  generally  to 
be  understood  in  their  usual  and  most  known  signification  / 
not  so  much  regarding  the  propriety  of  grammar  as  their 
general  and  popular  use  ;  but  when  words  bear  either 
none  or  a  very  absurd  signification,  if  literally  under- 
stood, we  must  a  little  deviate  from  the  received  sense 
of  them."— Corn.  vol.  1,  sect.  2. 

Baron  Montesquieu  :  "The  style  (of  laws)  should  be 
plain  and  simple  ;  a  direct  expression  being  always  better 
understood  than  an  indirect  one.  It  is  an  essential  arti- 
cle that  the  words  of  the  laws  should  (be  adapted  to) 
excite  in  every  body  the  same  ideas.  The  laws  ought 
not  to  be  subtle ;  they  are  designed  for  people  of  com- 
mon understanding." — Booth,  p.  105. 

Bishop  Taylor:  "in  all  things  where  the  precept  is 
given  in  the  proper  style  of  laws,  he  that  takes  the  first 
sense  is  the  likeliest  to  be  well  guided,  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  laws  of  Christ,  the  strict  sense  is  to  be 
followed." — Campbell's  and  Rice's  Debate,  p.  108. 

Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards:  "In  words  capable  of  two 
senses,  the  natural  and  proper  is  the  primary  ;  and,  there- 
fore, ought,  in  the  first  place,  and  chiefly  to  be  re- 
garded."— Ibid. 

Vitringa  :     "  This  is  accounted  bv  all  a  constant  and 


20  THE    TRIAL    OF 

undoubted  rule  of  approved  interpretation,  that  the  ordi- 
nary and  most  usual  signification  of  words  must  not  be 
deserted,  except  for  sufficient  reasons." — Ibid. 

Turretine :  "  It  is  acknowledged  by  all,  that  we  should 
never  depart  from  the  proper  and  native  signification  of 
words,  except  for  the  weightiest  and  most  urgent  rea- 
sons."— Ibid. 

Dr.  Benson  :  "  What  can  be  more  absurd,  than  to 
imagine  that  the  doctrines  or  rules  of  practice  which 
relate  to  men's  everlasting  salvation,  should  be  delivered 
in  such  ambiguous  terms,  as  to  be  capable  of  many 
meanings." — Ibid. 

Bp.  Home:  "By  historical  interpretation,  we  are  to 
understand  that  we  give  to  the  words  of  sacred  authors 
that  sense,  which  they  bore  in  the  age  when  they  lived." 
Hornets  Introdu.  to  the  study  of  the  Scrip. ,  p.  177. 

Dr.  G.  Hill :  "  Greek  words  passed  with  the  univer- 
sal language  of  ancient  Greece  to  other  nations,  and 
particularly  to  the  authors  of  the  septuagint  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  whose  works  every  sound  critic  must  un- 
derstand them,  unless  some  notice  is  given  of  a  different 
acceptation,  according  to  that  which  he  knows  to  have 
heen  their  received  sense  in  the  country  from  which  they 
came." — HUP s  Divinity,  p.  445. 

President  Dwight :  "  Of  course,  the  terms  in  which 
they  are  revealed,  are  used  in  such  a  manner  as  these 
(uneducated)  men  can  understand.  They  are,  therefore, 
used  according  to  their  plain,  customary,  obvious  mean- 


MR.    FEDOBAPTIST.  21 

incr,  the  meaning  which  they  have  in  the  usual  intercourse 
of  mankind." — Dwight's  Theology,  vol.  1,  p.  520. 

Professor  Stuart :  "  The  primary  or  literal  signifi- 
cation of  a  word  must  always  be  taken,  unless  the  con- 
text obviously  demands  a  secondary  signification." — 
Stuart  on  Baptism,  p.  12. 

Arch.  Bp.  Whately  :  "  But  again,  there  is  hardly  one 
of  these  passages  which  can  be  thus  explained  away, 
without  violating  the  maxim  above  laid  down,  viz : — 
That  we  should  consider,  not  any  interpretation  what- 
ever, that  such  words  can  bear,  but  what  notion  they 
conveyed,  and  must  have  been  known  to  convey  to  the 
hearers  at  the  time.  For  if  this  were  a  mistaken  notion, 
an  untrue  sense,  it  follows  inevitably  that  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  must  have  been  teachers  of  falsehood,  even 
though  their  words  should  be  capable  of  a  different  and 
true  signification." — Kingdom  of  Christ,  p.  33. 

These  authorities  are  sufficient  to  settle  beyond  a  rea- 
sonable dispute,  the  law  of  interpretation  to  be  applied 
to  words  found  in  positive  institutions.  Its  application 
to  the  subject  now  before  us  in  controversy,  the  meaning 
of  the  enacting  word  in  baptism,  an  institution  acknow- 
ledged to  be  a  positive  enactment,  will  enable  us  to  come 
to  a  satisfactory  conclusion,  when  the  evidence  is  before 
the  Court.  To  adopt  any  other  law  of  interpretation,  will 
be  to  leave  us  in  doubt  forever  about  the  will  of  the  Law- 
giver, when  he  commands  positive  duties.  To  tolerate 
for  a  moment  a  departure  from  this  undoubted  law  of 
interpretation,  is  to  make  void,  practically,  our  obligation 
to  the  acknowledged  bead  of  this  o-o  vera  men  t.     This  rule 


SS  Till'    TIUAL    OF 

recognizes  a  universal  law  of  communicating  tlie  will  of 
one  person  to  another.  To  contest  it,  is  impossible. 
The  exigence  of  all  forms  of  government  depend  upon 
it.  it  is  the  application  of  this  principle  that  constitutes 
this  Court,  and  governs  ail  our  proceedings.  All  our 
action  would  be  treated  as  a  nullity  without  it.        ? 

5.  The  figurative  application  of  a.  icord,  enters  not  within 
the  pale  of  the  interpretation  of  positive  precepts.  This  is  so 
evident  to  all,  that  all  authority  consulted  cordially  con- 
firms it  without  objection.  The  authorities  already  in 
evidence  that  speak  on  this  point,  only  speak  to  attest 
its  authority,  i  presume  it  will  be  cheerfully  acknow- 
ledged by  the  counsel  for  the  Prisoner.  If  he  wishes  to 
contest  it,  we  cordially  invite  its  investigation'  by  hint, 
and  we  will  then  promise  to  show  it  is  an  undoubted 
law  of  interpretation,  sanctioned  and  sustained  by  the 
best  authorities  in  and  out  of  the  church.  The  reason 
why  there  is  such  unanimity  among  reliable  authorities, 
may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  it  is  necessitated  by  the 
laws  of  language. 

6.  Jlti  intelligent  legislation  contemplates  a  specific  ob- 
ject in  its  enactments.  That  object  can  only  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  words  employed  to  express  it,  and  these 
are  to  be  taken  in  their  usual  signification.  This  is  true 
of  human  legislation.  How  much  more  true  it  is  of 
Divine  legislation.  The  soundness  of  this  principle  is 
palpable  to  all  v/ho  have  any  discernment,  and  to  deny 
it,  would  be  to  make  ail  legislation  a  nullity,  and  human 
responsibility  a  nameless  thing.  Who  is  prepared  for 
this  conclusion]    All  men  act  according  to  thisprinclnle^ 


MR.   PED0BAPT1ST.  23 

and  the  Divine  conduct  is  regulated  by  it.  Therefore, 
our  obedience  becomes  a  reasonable  service. 

7.  The  usus  loquendi  of  a  word  in  the  language,  is  the 
supreme  tribunal  to  determine  its  meaning.  This  is  a  self- 
evident  law  of  approved  interpretation.  I  look  for  no 
objection  to  be  offered  to  it.  It  points  out  the  only  in- 
telligent process  that  can  be  adopted,  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  any  ancient  author.  Its  application  to  bap- 
tizo,  in  the  law,  and  the  words  associated  with  it,  will 
meet  the  hearty  approval  of  the  Court,  and  lead  us  all  to 
a  conclusion  worthy  of  our  position  and  relation  to  the 
country. 

Let  these  facts  be  applied  to  this  case,  as  they  must  be, 
if  we  wish  to  come  to  an  intelligent  and  impartial  judg- 
ment of  the  controversy  between  the  parties.  They  will 
lead  us,  I  think,  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion,  when  the 
evidence  is  placed  at.  our  command,  They  are  intended 
to  show  what  act  was  required  of  us  in  the  Constitution, 
when  baptizo  was  incorporated  in  it  by  the  Lawgiver.  I 
am  sure  that  the  evidence,  under  the  control  and  guid- 
ance of  these  principles,  will  afford  no  justification  for 
the  conduct  of  the  Prisoner,  but  condemns  it  entirely. 

The  evidence  we  shall  present  to  the  Court  and  jury, 
will  be  classified  in  the  following  order: 

1.  The  literal  meaning  of  baptizo,  in  the  law  of  bap- 
tism, is  only  immersion  in  water.  This  proposition  will 
be  sustained  by  a  host  of  witnesses,  and  nearly  all  of 
them  shall  be  the  personal  friends  of  the  Prisoner. 

2.  The  evidence  of  this  fact  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment fnnn   the  person?,  places  and   circumstances  eon- 


24  THE    TB1AL   OF 

nected  with  the  first  administration  of  the  act  under  the 
law. 

3.  We  shall  prove  the  fact  of  immersion  heing  the 
action  of  baptism,  by  the  design  of  the  institution,  as  a 
symbolic  representation  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
the  Author  of  Christianity. 

4.  We  shall  also  prove  this  meaning  of  baptizo  from 
the  history  of  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  for 
many  years  after  its  institution. 

5.  We  will  undertake  to  prove,  that  the  Prisoner  at 
the  bar  did  change  Christian  Immersion,  and  did  substi- 
tute sprinkling  and  pouring  in  its  place,  contrary  to  the 
words  of  the  law,  to  the  design  of  the  institution,  and  the 
practice  under  its  first  administration. 

If  we  can  prove  to  your  satisfaction  that  these  facts 
are  well  founded,  we  have  bo  doubt  you  will  agree  with 
us  that  the  Prisoner  is  guilty  in  manner  and  form  as  he 
stands  charged  in  the  indictment.  It  will  then  be  your 
duty  to  say  so  in  your  verdict.  A  verdict  of  this  kind 
will  restore  this  institution  to  that  honorable  position 
which  it  occupied  at  the  formation  of  this  government, 
and  also  will  heal  that  dangerous  division  among  our 
citizens,  which  has  threatened  for  some  time  the  perpe- 
tuity of  our  national  existence.  All  our  people  are  bound 
to  abide  by  your  judgment.  Let  it  restore  the  land- 
marks which  our  fathers  set  on  this  subject,  and  it  wil 
accomplish  all  we  desire. 

After  all,  if  the  evidence  we  offer,  with  the  instruction 
of  the  Court,  will  not  clearly  warrant  a  verdict  of  guilty, 
it  will  be  your  duty  to  acquit  the  defendant.     If  it  can  be 


so,  after  hearing  the  law  and  evidence,  we  will  rejoice  in 
the  belief  that  Mr.  Baptist  had  altogether  mistaken  the 
Prisoner's  character,  and  the  weight  of  the  evidence  on 
which  he  relied  for  a  conviction.  We  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  call  the  witnesses. 

CLASSICAL  USE  OF  THE  WORD  "  BAPTIZO." 

Mr.  Classic  was  called  and  qualified. 

Question  by  the  Counsel  for  the  prosecution.— Is  the 
Greek  language  your  vernacular  tongue  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — Are  baptizo,  and  its  cognates,  Greek  words'? 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — Has  the  word  baptizo  necessarily  a  reference  to 
water,  in  its  signification  l 

A. — No  sir.  This  is  evident  to  all  who  consider  its 
use  in  the  kvng-uajre.  It  is  there  used  with  reference  to 
any  substance  that  can  be  penetrated. 

Q. — What  is  its  popular  or  literal  meaning  in  the 
language! 

A. — The  literal  or  common  meaning  of  baptizo  and  its 
cognates,  is  to  dip  or  immerse  into  something  that  is 
penetrable.  I  will  read  a  sufficient  number  of  authorities, 
from  among  our  best  writers,  to  confirm  my  answer. 

Pindar,  Pyth.  II.  139,  "  describes  the  impotent  malice 
of  his  enemies,  by  representing  himself  to  be  like  the  cork 
upon  a  net  in  the  sea,  which  does  not  sink :  As  when  a  net 
is  cast  into  the  sea,  the  cork  swims  above,  so  am  1  unplunged 
(abaptistos;)  on  which  the  Greek  scholiast,  in  comment- 
ing, says:  'As  the  cork,o«  dunei,  does  not  sink,  so  I  am 


26  THE    TRIAL    OF 

abaptistos,  unplunged,  not  immersed.  *  *  *  The  cork  re- 
mains abaptistos,  and  swims  on  the  surface  of  the  sea,  be- 
ing of  a  nature  which  is  abaptistos ;  in  like  manner  I  am 
abaptistos.'  In  the  beginning  of  this  explanation,  the  scho- 
liast says:  'Like  the  cork  of  a  net  in  the  sea,  ou  bap- 
tizomai,  I  am  not  plunged  or  sunk.11  " — Stuart,  p.  52. 

Heraelides  Pontieus,  a  disciple-  of  Aristotle,  Allegor, 
p.  495,  says:  "When  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red  hot 
from  the  fire,  and  plunged  in  water,  (udati  baptizetai,)  the 
heat,  being  quenched  by  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  water 
ceases." — Ibid.  p.  53. 

Polybius,  III.  72.  "The  foot  soldiers  passed  through 
(the  water,)  sear.cely  immersed  to  the  papa" — Ibid.  p.  55.^ 

The  same  author  gives  as  another  example  equally 
decisive;  "They  are  of  themselves  immersed,  (baptizo- 
?nai,)  and  sunk  in  the  marshes." 

Plutarch,  PatS'll.  Graee.  Rom.  p.  545,  speaking  of  the 
stratagem  of  a  Roman  General,  in  order  to  ensure  vic- 
tory, says  :  M  He  set  up  a  trophy,  on  which,  dipping  his 
hand  into  blood,  (eis  to  airna,  baptisas,)  he  wrote  this 
inscription,"  etc.  In  Vol.  VI.  p.  680,  (edit.  Keiskc,)  he 
speaks  of  iron  plunged  (baptomenon,)  viz :  into  water, 
in  order  to  harden  it. — Ibid.  p.  633,  '  Plunge  (baptison,) 
yourself  into  the  sea,'  Vol.  X.  p.  118,  'Then  plunging 
(baptison,)  himself  into  the  lake  Copais.'  " — Stuart,  pp. 
53-4. 

Lucian,  Vol.  i.  p.  139,  represents  Timon,  the  man- 
hater,  as  saying  :  "  If  a  winter's  flood  should  carry  away 
any  one,  and  he,  stretching  out  his  hands,  should  beg 
for  help,  1  would  press  down  the  head  of  such  an  one 


MRi  PEDOBAPTIST.  27 

when  sinking,  (baptizonta,)  so  that  he  could  not  rise  up 
again." — Ibid.  p.  54. 

Strabo,  Lib.  VI.  p.  421,  speaking  of  a  lake  near  Agri« 
gentum,  says :  u  Things  that  elsewhere  cannot  float  do 
not  sink  (mee  baptizesthai)  in  the  water  of  this  lake,  but 
swim  in  the  manner  of  wood."  XII.  p.  809,  "  if  one 
shoots  an  arrow  into  the  channel  (of  a  certain  rivulet  in 
Cappadocia,)  the  force  of  the  water  resists  it  so  much, 
that  it  will  scarcely  plunge  in,  (baptizesthai.")  XIV.  p. 
982,  "  They  (the  soldiers,)  marched  a  whole  day  through 
the  water,  plunged  in  (baptizomenon)  up  to  the  waist." 
XVI.  p.  1108,  u  The  bitumen  floats  on  the  top  (of  the 
lake  Sirbon,)  because  of  the  nature  of  the  water,  which 
admits  of  no  diving;  nor  can  any  one  who  enters  it 
plunge  in,  (baptizestha,)  but  is  borne  up." — Ibid.  p.  55. 

Epictetus,  III.  p.  69,  ed.  Schwiegh.  in  a  fragment  of 
his  work,  says:  "As  you  would  not  wish,  sailing  in  a 
large  ship  adorned  and  abounding  with  gold,  to  be  sunk 
or  immerged,  (baptizesthai,)  so,  etc." — Ibid. 

Themistius,  Orat.  IV.  p.  133,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gale, 
says  :  "  The  pilot  cannot  tell  but  he  may  save  one  in 
the  voyage  that  had  better  be  drowned,  sunk  (baptisai) 
into  the  sea." 

Dio  also  affords  evidence  decisive  of  the  same  mean- 
ing:  "They  are  entirely  baptized,  (baptizontai)  sunk, 
overwhelmed  or  immersed,"  XXXVIII.  p.  84. — Carson, 
p.  65. 

^He  applies  it  to  the    sinking  of  ships  :  "  So   great  a 
storm  suddenly  arose  through  the  whole  country,  that 


28  THE    TRIAL   Oi- 

the  boats  were  baptized  or  sunk  in  the  Tiber."  XXXVII.— 
Ibid. 

He  applies  it  in  the  same  way,  i.  492  :  "  How  could  it 
escape  sinking  from  the  very  multitude  of  rowers'?" — Ibid. 

The  sinner  is  represented  by  Porphyry,  p.  282,  as 
"  baptized  (baptizetai)  up  to  his  head  in  Styx,  the  famous 
lake  in  hell,"— Ibid. 

"The  Sibylline  verse  concerning  the  city  of  Athens, 
quoted  by  Plutarch,  in  his  life  of  Theseus,  determines 
the  meaning  of  baptizo :  'Thou  mayest  be  dipped, 
(baptizei,)  O  bladder  !  but  thou  art  not  fated  to  sink.'  " — 
Ibid.,  p.  61. 

Hippocrates,  p.  532,  edit.  Basil :  "  Shall  I  not  laugh 
at  the  man  who  sinks  (baptisonta)  his  ship  by  overload- 
ing it,  and  then  complains  of  the  sea  for  engulphing  it 
with  its  cargo  V 

Again,  p.  2:H,  Hippocrates  says  :  "  Dip  (baptize)  it 
again  in  breast-miik  and  Egyptian  ointment." — Carson, 
p.  64. 

The  same  writer  gives  xis  the  clearest  insight  into  the 
meaning  of  this  word,  by  twice  comparing  a  peculiar 
kind  of  breathing  in  patients,  to  the  breathing  of  a  per- 
son after  being  immersed  :  "  He  breathed  as  persons 
breathe  after  being  baptized. "  p.  310.  The  same  com- 
parison occurs  again,  p.  357,  in  the  following  words  : 
"  He  breathed  as  persons  breathe  after  being  baptiz- 
ed."— Ibid. 

Dionysus  "  observes  that,  '  the  poet  (Homer)  ex- 
presses himself  with  great  emphasis,  representing  the 
sword  to  be  so   baptized   (baptisthentos)  as   to  become 


MR.  FfiDOUAPXIST.  29 

warm  with  blood.'  The  same  may  be  said  respecting 
the  swords  and  helmets  baptized  in  the  marches  after 
the  battle  of  Grchomenus." — H&nton. 

"  The  example  given  by  Hammond  is  also  irresistible. 
It  is  said  of  Eupolis,  'that  being  thrown  into  the  sea, 
(ebaptizeto,)  he  was  immersed  all  over.'  " — Carson,  p.  62. 

"  The  expression  quoted  by  Hendericus  from  Heliod. 
b.  5.,  is  equally  decisive — 'to  baptize  into  the  lake.' 
And  that  from  Esop,  '  the  ship  being  in  danger  of  sink- 
ing, (baplizing).'  " — Ibid. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  use  baptizo  or  its  cognates,  to  de- 
note the  action  of  sprinkling  or  -pouring  ? 

A. — Not  in  a  solitary  instance,  for  they  belong  to  two 
different  families  of  words  in  our  language. 

Question  by  Prisoner's  Counsel. — Have  you  not  used 
some  of  this  family  of  words,  to  denote  the  state  of 
objects  overwhelmed! 

A. — TJjis  may  be  considered  their  meaning,  (not  pro- 
perly) in  the  following  occurrences  of  baptizo: 

Aristole,  De  Mirabil.  Ausc,  "speaks  of  a  saying 
among  the  Phenicians,  that  there  were  certain  places 
beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  <  which,  when  it  is  ebb- 
tide are  not  overflowed,  (baptizesthai,)  but  at  fulltide  are 
overflowed,  (katakluzesthai,)  which  word  is  here  used 
as   an   equivalent  for  baptizesthai.'" — Stuart,  p.  60. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  Tom.  I,  p.  107  :  "  Most  of  the  land 
animals  that  are  intercepted  by  the  river  (Nile)  perish, 
being  overwhelmed,  (baptizomena)."  Tom.  VII.,  p.  191. 
"  The  river,  borne  along  by  a  more  violent  current,  over- 
w/iclmed  (abaptise)  many," — Ibid, 


30  THE    TRIAL    OF 

Q. — Did  you  not  sometimes  use  baptizo  to  denote  wash  1 

A. — No,  sir.  They  are  not  synonymous,  because 
wash  belongs  to  another  family  in  the  language.  Bap- 
tism may  be  used  to  denote  a  mode  of  washing,  when  it 
is  done  by  immersion. 

Q. — You  do  not  profess  to  give  the  sacred  use  of  this 
word  1 

A.-^-No  sir. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Would  those  quotations  which  you  read 
from  Stuart,  which  substitute  the  words  "  overflowed" 
and  "overwhelmed,"  in  place  of  baptizo,  not  have  been 
better  translated  by  substituting  the  word  immersed  for 
baptizo  ? 

A. — Yes  sir,  for  that  is  the  action  which  really  took 
place  in  those  passages.  The  things  said  to  be  baptised 
were  immersed. 

Q. — Is  not  the  figurative  meaning  of  baptizo,  in  har- 
mony with  its  primary  signification,  to  immers^e  1 

A. — Yes  sir.  The  primary  meaning  being  to  immerse 
literally,  the  figurative  use  of  baptizo  is  founded  upon 
this  fact.  We  will  read  you  a  few  authorities  from  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  in  proof  of  this  fact. 

"  Evenus  XV.,  in  Jacobs'  Anthol,  I.,  p.  99,  says :  '  If 
(Bacchus)  breathe  strongly,  it  hinders  love,'  i.  e.,  if  a 
man  becomes  thoroughly  intoxicated,  it  hinders  the  grati- 
fication of  amorous  passions  ;  '  for  he  (Bacchus)  over- 
whelms (baptizei)  with  sleep  near  to  death.' 

"Heliodorus,  Ethiop.  Lib.  IV.,  p.  192:  '  When  mid- 
night has  overwhelmed  (ebaptizon)  the  city  with  sleep.' 
Lib.  II.,  3,  overwhelmed  (bebaptismenon)  by  misfortune.' 


MB,  rKOpiSAPTIST.  31 

**  Clemens,  Alex.  Paed.  11,  p.  182.  'By  intoxication 
overwhelmed  (baptizomenos)  unto  sleep.'' 

"■Pluto,  Conviv.  p.  176  'I  myself  am  one  of  those 
who  were  overwhelmed  (bebaptismenonV  In  another 
place:  'Having  overwhelmed  (baptisasa)  Alexander 
with  much  wine.' 

"  Lucian,  Tom.  III.,  p.  81 :  'He  is  like  one  dizzy  and 
overwhelmed.' 

"Justin  Martyr,  Dialog.  Cum  Tryphone,  p.  313: — 
'Overwhelmed  (bebaptismenos)  with  sins.' 

*'  Plutarch,  Tom.  VI.,  p.  30  :  '  The  soul  is  nourished  by 
moderate  labors,  but  is  overwhelmed  (baptizetai)  by  ex- 
cessive ones.'  In  his  Moralia,  Tom.  III.,  p.  150-ts  he 
speaks  of  Galba  as  '  bebaptismenon,  overwhelmed  with 
debts.'  In  Opp.  VIII.,  p.  345,  he  says:  '  Overwhelmed 
(baptizomenous)  with  business.' 

"  Chrysostorn,  as  quoted  by  Suicer,  Thes.  Ecc.  I.,  p. 
623  :     '  To  be  overwhelmed  (baptisthenai)  with  wine  ;' 

*  overwhelmed  (baptizmenos)    with  innumerable  cares ; 

*  overwhelmed  (baptizomenoi)  with  a  multitude  of  cares  ;' 
'immerged  (bebaptismenos)  in  malignity.' " — Stuart  on 
Bap.,  pp.  61-2. 

He  said,  these  authorities  are  sufficient  to  show  the 
figurative  use  of  baptizo.  Professor  Stuart,  in  these 
translations,  would  have  given  the  original  better  by  sub- 
stituting immerse,  for  overwhelmed.  I  read  from  his 
translations,  to  prevent  any  suspicions  being  excited  in  the 
minds  of  any  present,  of  partiality.  Overwhelmed  con- 
tains the  idea  of  immersion   so   strikingly,  that    it  will 


32  THE    TMAL   OF 

point  directly  to  the  literal  meaning  of  baptizo,  viz:  i& 
immerse. 

Q. — Do  the  words  that  are  used  to  denote  wash  m 
your  language,  for  instance,  louo,  nipto  and  plwio,  belong 
to  this  family  of  words  1 

A. — No  sir.     They  belong  to  another  family. 

JEWISH  t/SE  OF   THE  WORD  BAPTIZO. 

Mr.  Josepheus  was  called  and  qualified. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Did  you  live  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  % 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q.- — Did  you  write  the  history  of  the  Jews,  in  the  Greek 
language  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — What  act  was  signified  by  the  Word  baptizo  and 
its  cognates,  at  the  time  in  which  you  wrote  1 

A. — It  was  used  to  denote  the  act  of  immersion.  The 
following  places  in  my  work  will  justify  my  answer: 

Ant.  ix.  10,  speaking  of  the  ship  in  which  Jonah  was, 
I  say:  "the  ship  being  about  to  sink,  (baptizesthai.")  In 
the  history  of  my  own  life,  speaking  of  a  voyage  to 
Rome,  during  which  the  ship  that  carried  me  foundered 
in  the  Adriatic,  i  say :  "  Our  ship  being  immersed,  or 
sinking,  (baptisthentos)  in  the  midst  of  the  Adriatic." 
Speaking  of  Aristobulus  as  having  been  been  drowned 
by  command  of  Herod,  Bell.  Jud.  1,  I  say:  "The  boy 
was  ssnt  to  Jericho,  and  there,  agreeably  to  command^ 
being  immersed  in  a  pond  (baptizomenos,)  he  perished.'7 
Bell.  Jud.  11,  "As  they  (the  sailors)  swam  away  from  a 
sinking    (baptizomenees)  ship.1'     B^ll.  Jud.  Ill,  "  Th*> 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  33 

wave  being  raised  very  high,  overwhelmed  or  immersed 
(ebaptise)  them." 

Speaking  of  the  purification  from  defilement  by  a  dead 
body,  I  say:  "And  having  dipped  (baptized)  some  of 
the  ashes  into  spring  water,  they  sprinkled,"  &c. 

Describing  the  death  of  one  Simon  by  his  own  hands, 
i  say  :  "  He  baptized,  or  plunged  his  sword  up  to  the  hilt, 
into  his  own  bowels,"  p.  752 

Again  :  "  They  were  baptized,  or  sunk,  with  the  ships 
themselves."  p.  792. 

Q  — Did  you  ever  use  baptizo  and  its  family,  for 
sprinkle  or  pour  1 

A. — No  sir.  They  belong  to  two  different  familh  , 
therefore  they  are  not  synonymous  or  convertable. 

Q.  C  Pri, — Did  you  ever  use  this  word  to  denote  a 
religious  washing  1 

A. — Yes  sir,  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist.— Josep. 
p.  367. 

Q. — Does  not  the  passage  in  Numbers,  19  c.  17,  (''And 
for  an  unclean  person  they  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the 
burnt  heifer  of  purification  for  sin,  and  running  water 
shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel :")  teach  that  the  water 
was  applied  to  the  ashes  !  If  so,  do  you  in  that  place, 
where  you  describe  the  mode  of  preparation,  apply  the 
word  baptize  to  denote  this  mode  of  application7? 

A. — No  sir.  The  passage  in  the  Scriptures  directs  the 
water  to  be  applied  to  the  ashes.  I  describe  a  manner 
of  preparation  by  another  mode,  by  dipping  the  ashes 
into  water, 

B 


34  THE  trial  or 

TESTIMONY  OF  LEXICONS  AS  TO  THE  MEANING  OF  BAPTIZO. 

Mr.  Lexicon  was  called  and  qualified, 
Q.  C.  Pro. — Please,  sir,  give  us   your  knowledge  of 
baptizo  and  its  family. 

A. — 1  shall  do  it  cheerfully,  by  reading  from  among 
the  most  eminent  men  in  our  brotherhood; 

Scapula,  a  foreign  lexicographer,  of  1579.  Of  baptizo — 
"To  dip,  to  immerse;  also  submerge  or  overwhelm,  to 
wash,  to  cleanse." 

Henricus  Stephanus,  of  1572.  Bapto  and  baptizo — "  To 
dip  or  immerge,  as  we  dip  things  for  the  purpose  of  dye- 
ing them,  or  immerge  them  in  water." 

Thesaurus  of  Robertson,  edition  1676,  defines  baptizo' 
"to  immerse,  to  wash." 

Schleusner,  1.  "  Properly  it  signifies,  I  immerse,  I  dip, 
I  immerse  in  water.  2d.  It  signifies,  1  wash  or  cleanse  by 
water — because  for  the  most  part,  a  thing  must  be  dipped 
or  plunged  in  water  that  it  may  be  washed." 

Pasor,  bapto  et  baptizo.  "  To  dip,  to  immerse,  to  dye ; 
because  it  is  done  by  immersing.  It  differs  from  dunai, 
which  means  to  sink  to  the  bottom,  and  to  be  thoroughly 
submerged. " — Ed.  1650. 

Donegan,  baptizo — "  To  immerse  repeatedly  into  a 
liquid,  to  submerge,  to  sink  thoroughly,  to  saturate ; 
metaphorically,  to  drench  with  wine,  to  dip  in  a  vessel. 
Baptismos — immersion,  submersion,  the  act  of  washing 
or  bathing." 

Rev.  Dr.  John  Jones  of  England — baptizo — "  1  plunge, 
I  plunge  in  water,  dip,  baptize,  bury,  overwhelm." 


MR.  PEDOBAI'TIST.  35 

Bretschneider,  said  to  be  the  most  critical  lexicographer 
of  the  New  Testament,  affirms  :  "  That  an  entire  immer- 
sion belongs  to  the  nature  of  baptism."  "  This  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word;  for  in  baptizo  is  contained  the 
idea  of  a  complete  immersion  under  water,  at  least  so  is 
baptisma  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  New  Testament 
baptizo  is  not  used,  unless  concerning  the  sacred  and 
solemn  submersion  which  the  Jews  used,  that  they  might 
oblige  an  individual  to  an  amendment  of  life.  In  the 
New  Testament,  without  any  adjunct,  it  means :  '  I  bap- 
tize in  water  in  the  solemn  rite,'  (as  the  Latin  Fathers 
use  it.)  Actively,  I  baptize  one,  passively,  I  am  immersed 
into  water  in  the  solemn  ordinance — I  am  initiated  by 
baptism,  Matt.  3,  16  ;  Mark  1,  4> ;  Rom.  6,  2.  Baptizma, 
immersion,  submersion.  In  N.  T.  it  is  used  only  con- 
cerning the  sacred  submersion,  which  the  Fathers  call 
baptism.    It  is  used  concerning  John's  baptism." 

Bass,  an  English  lexicographer  for  the  New  Testament, 
gives  baptizo  uto  dip,  immerse,  plunge  in  water,  to  bathe 
one's  self,  to  be  immersed  in  sufferings  or  afflictions." 

Stokius,  on  the  New  Testament,  deposes  as  follows : 
"Generally,  it  obtains  the  sense  of  dipping  or  immersing, 
without  respect  to  water  or  any  liquid  whatever.  2d. 
Specially,  and  in  its  proper  signification,  it  signifies  to 
dip  or  immerse  in  water.  This  is  the  New  Testament 
sense.  3d.  Tropically,  and  by  a  metalepsis,  it  means  to 
wash,  to  cleanse,  because  a  thing  is  usually  dipped  or 
immersed  in  water  that  it  may  be  washed,  that  it  may  be 
cleansed." — See,  as  above,  in  Campbell's  and  Rice's  De- 
bate, pp.  58-59.  * 


36  THE   TRIAL   OF 

Pickering,  Baptisma — "  immersion,  dipping,  plunging, 
metaphorically,  misery  or  calamity,  with  which  one  is 
overwhelmed." 

Con&tantinus,  Baptismos,  baptism — "The  act  of  dye- 
ing, that  is  of  plunging." — Ed.  1592. 

Schoettgenus,  Baptizo,  from  Bapto,  properly — "  To 
plunge,  to  immerse  j  to  cleanse,  to  wash." — Lex.  in  N.  T. 
1765. 

Alstedius,  "Baptizein,  to  baptize,  signifies  only  to  im- 
merse, not  to  wash,  except  by  consequence." — Chap.  xii. 
p.  221. 

Mr.  Wilson,  "To  baptize,  to  dip  into  water,  or  to 
plunge  one  into  the  water." — Chris.  Diet.  Ed.  1678. 

Mr.  Baily,  "Baptism,  in  strictness  of  speech,  is  that 
kind  of  ablution,  or  washing,  which  consists  in  dipping; 
and  when  applied  to  the  Christian  institution,  so  called, 
it  was  used  by  the  primitive  Christians  in  no  other  sense 
than  that  of  dipping,  as  the  learned  Grotius  and  Casua* 
bon  well  observe.  But  as  new  customs  introduced  new 
signification  of  words,  in  process  of  time  it  admitted  the 
idea  of  sprinkling,  as  in  case  of  clinical  baptism." 

Q. — Can  there  be  a  Lexicon  found,  that  says  baptizo 
signifies  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  for  1800  years  from  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  era  1 

A. — None,  as  far  as  1  know. 

Q.  C.  Pris. — The  most  of  the  authorities  you  have 
read,  give  to  this  family  of  words  wash,  cleanse,  &c,  as 
definitions,  do  they  not  1 

A. — Yes  sir — and  you  must  have  noted  that  some  of 
them  assign  the  reason,  because  it  is  done  by  dipping. 


MB.  PEUOBAPTIST.  37 

Q. — You  are  aware  that  words  may  have  different 
meanings;  when  this  is  so,  connection  must  determine 
the  meaning  l 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — Baptizo,  as  employed  by  the  Greeks,  was  used 
not  in  reference  to  religious  washings,  but  to  the  com- 
mon occurrences  of  life  % 

A. — That  is  so. 

Q.  Were  not  those  authorities  which  you  have  read, 
that  give  to  baptizo  other  meanings  besides  dip  or  im- 
merse, as  capable  as  any  others  in  your  family  to  ascer- 
tain its  meanings  1 

A  — Yes  sir ;  but  they  do  not  sustain  these  definitions 
by  authorities  from  the  language. 

Q. — Is  not  this  word  used  by  the  Jews,  to  denote  their 
religious  washings  1 

A. — Yes  sir;  but  they  used  a  number  of  other  words. 
Q. — May  not  the  Jews  have  attached  a  distinct  mean- 
ing to  this  word,  different  from  that  of  the  Greeks  1 

A. — Yes  sir ;  but  those  Lexicons  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  we  have  read,  seemed  to  think  differently. 

Q. — Have  not  some  of  them  given  several  meanings  to 
the  word  baptizo  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — Do  you  not  know  that  this  word  was  generic  in 
its  character  among  the  Jews  % 

A. — We  have  not  judged  so  from  its  use,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  the  church  under  it. 


38  THE    TRIAL    OF 

Q. — Have  not  the  largest  number  of  you,  with  a  host 
of  other  men  of  equal  learning,  practiced  with  the  Pri- 
soner, sprinkling  and.  pouring,  as  Christian  baptism  % 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Are  you  not  practically  Pedobaptists  % 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — Does  this  not  account  for  you,  or  some  of  you, 
giving  the  effects  of  dipping,  as  subordinate  meaning  to 
the  word  baptizo,  without  authority  from  the  language  \ 

A. — We  are  all  of  one  mind  as  to  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  word  being  to  dip.  The  other  meanings  may  be 
the  effects  of  the  action — as  some  of  the  authorities  read, 
say  "figurative  meanings." 

Q. — Are  there  not  in  the  Greek  language  words  to 
denote  wash,  pour,  sprinkle,  cleanse,  purify,  &c.  1 

A. — Yes  sir.  Louo,  cheo,  ratio,  katharizo,  Sfc. 

Q. — Are  they  not  all  found  in  the  New  Testament  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

TRANSLATION  OF  BAPTIZO  IN  ORIENTAL  VERSIONS. 

Mr.  Translator  was  called  and  qualified. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Please,  sir,  give  us  a  brief  account  of  the 
use  of  baptizo,  in  ancient  and  modern  oriental  versions 
of  the  Scripture,  with  the  authorities  to  determine  the 
meaning  of  the  words  substituted  for  baptizo  ? 

A. — I  will  give  you  as  brief  an  answer  to  your  ques- 
tion as  I  can.  You  will  permit  me  to  read  my  answer 
from  the  Appendix  to  Professor  Stuart  on  Baptism — pub- 
lished by  Graves  and  Marks,  Nashville,  p.  245. 


BIR.   PEBOBAI'TIST.  39 

Sysiac. — "  The  old  Syriac,  or  Peshito,  is  acknowledged 
to  be  the  most  ancient,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  accu- 
rate versions  of  the  New  Testament  extant.  It  was  made 
at  least  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
in  the  very  country  where  the  Apostles  lived  and  wrote, 
and  where  both  the  Syriac  and  the  Greek  were  constant- 
ly used  and  perfectly  understood.  Of  course  it  was  exe- 
cuted by  those  who  understood  and  spoke  both  languages 
precisely  as  the  sacred  writers  themselves  understood 
and  spoke  them.  Michaelis,  whose  competency  to  judge 
of  its  merits,  will  not  be  disputed,  pronounced  it  to  be 
very  best  translation  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  he 
ever  read.  This  version  renders  baptizo  and  its  deriva 
tives  uniformly  by  amad,  and  its  corresponding  deriva- 
tives. All  authorities  agree  in  assigning  to  this  word, 
the  primary  and  leading  signification  of  immersion. — 
Prof.  Stuart,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  the  first  whoever  sug- 
gested a  doubt  of  this  meaning.  '  The  Syriac,'  he  ob- 
serves, '  has  a  word,  tzeva,  like  the  Chaldee  tzeva,  and 
the  corresponding,  Hebrew  tava,  which  means  to  plunge, 
dip,  immerse,  etc.  Why  should  it  employ  the  word 
amad,  then,  in  order  to  render  baptizo  ?  In  the  Old  Tes- 
tament it  is  employed  in  the  like  sense,  only  in  Numbers 
31 :  23.  There  is  no  analogy  of  kindred  languages  to 
support  the  sense  in  question  of  the  Syriac  amad.  The 
Hebrew,  Chaldee  and  Arabic  all  agree  in  assigning  to 
the  same  word  the  sense  of  the  Latin  stare,  perstare,  ful- 
cire,  roborare.  It  is  hardly  credible,  that  tne  Syriac 
word  could  vary  so  much  from  all  these  languages,'  as 
properly  to  mean  immerse,  dip,  etc.     We  come  almost 


4fO  THE   TRIAL  OF 

necessarily  to  the  conclusion,  then,  inasmuch  as  the  Sy« 
riac  has  an  appropriate  word  which  signifies  to  dip, 
plunge,  immerse,  (tzeva,)  and  yet  it  is  never  employed  in 
the  Peshito,  that  the  translator  did  not  deem  it  impor- 
tant to  designate  any  particular  mode  of  baptism,  but 
only  to  designate  the  rite  by  a  term  which  evidently 
appears  to  mean  confirm,  establish,  etc.  Baptism,  then, 
in  the  language  of  the  Peshito,  is  the  rite  of  confirmation 
simply,  while  the  manner  of  this  is  apparently  left  with- 
out being  at  all  expressed. ' 

"  1.  I  would  observe,  in  reply  to  this,"  says  the  au- 
thor of  the  Appendix,  "  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  ca- 
nons of  criticism,  to  make  the  meaning  of  the  Syriac 
word  entirely  dependent  on  the  usage  of  the  kindred 
languages,  even  though  these  several  words  were 
proved  to  be  identical.  Michael  is,  however,  in  his 
Syriac  Lexicon,  under  the  word  amad,  remarks  that,  in 
his  opinion,  it  is  evidently  derived,  not  from  the  Hebrew 
amad,  to  stand,  but  from  the  Arabic  ghamat,  to  submerge. 
The  signification  to  stand,  he  says  he  does  not  find  at  all 
in  the  Syriac,  unless  it  be  contained  in  the  derivate, 
amud,  a  pillar  ;  which  usually  occurs  in  the  phrase,  '  a 
pillar  of  cloud,'  or  '  a  pillar  of  fire.' 

"  2.  Though  the  Syrians  had  a  score  of  words  signify- 
ing immersion,  it  would  not  follow  that  amad  has  not  a 
similar  meaning.  The  Greeks  have  several  words  to 
express  this  act,  as  bapto,  baptizo,  dupto,  etc.,  of  which 
baptizo  alone  is  used  to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism  j 
and  yet  Prof.  Stuart  admits  that  baptizo  signifies  immer- 
sion.    But  amad,  though  the  Peshito  happens  to  employ 


MB.      FEDOBAFTIST.  1! 

?t  exclusively,  is  not  the  only  word  used  in  the  Syriac  to 
translate  baptizo.  The  very  word  (Izcva)  which  Profes- 
sor Stuart  mentions  as  properly  signifying  imnersion,  is 
often  used  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  with  Michaelis  in  his  hands,  cannot  be 
ignorant  of  this.  See  Mich.  Lex.  Syr.,  under  the  word, 
and  authorities  there  referred  to. 

"3.  The  assertion  that  amad  evidently  appears  to  mean. 
confirm,  establish,  etc.,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Where  is 
the  evidence  of  this  meaning  ?  Is  it  in  usage?  Not  in 
the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  surely.  It  is  not  credi- 
ble that  Prof.  Stuart,  upon  mature  reflection,  would  be 
willing  to  read,  Luke  11 :  38.  'And  when  the  Pharisee 
saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  (Jesus)  had  not  first  confirmed 
himself  (amad)  before  dinner.'  Mark  7  :  4.  'And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  confirm  them~ 
selves,  (amadin,)  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold  ;  as  the  con- 
firmation, (maamuditha)  of  cups  and  pots,  and  brazen 
vessels,  and  tables,'  &c.  Such  an  interpretation,  if  it 
does  not  make  nonsense  of  these  (and  other)  passages,  is 
an  entire  perversion  of  their  meaning  *  *  *.  -The  idea  of 
4  confirmation,'  or  'establishment'  is  introduced  in  the 
New  Testament  some  scores  of  times,  but  never  in  a 
single  instance  is  it  expressed  by  amad.  The  word  does 
not  occur  in  this  sense  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  indeed 
in  any  author  whatever.  Is  any  evidence  of  this  mean- 
ing to  be  derived  from  the  Lexicons']  Not  one  of  them 
acknowledges  it.  Castell  defines  the  word  ablutus  est, 
baptizatu?  est,  immersit:  to  b?the,  baptize,  immerse — 


42  TI1R    TRIAL    OF  ' 

See  Castel.  Lex.  rieptaglot,  sub,  vc.  London,  1K69. 
Michael  is  defines  it,  ablutus  est,  baptizatus  est,  immersit : 
to  bathe,  baptize,  immerse  ;  and  adds,  as  has  been  observed, 
that  it  comes  from  the  Arabic  ghamat,  to  immerge. — See 
Mich.  Lex.  sub.  vc.  Gottingen,  1788.  Schaaf  defines  it 
ablutus  se,  ablutus,  intincus,  immersus  in  aquam,  bapti- 
zatus est :  to  bathe  one's  self,  to  bathe,  dip,  immerse  into 
water,  baptize. — See  Schaaf  Lex.  Syr.  sub.  vc.  Lyons 
1708.  Guido  Fabricus  defines  it  baptizavit,  intinxit, 
lavit:  to  baptize,  dip,  bathe. — See  Lex.  Syro.  Chal.  ac- 
companying the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  sub.  vc.  Antwerp, 
1592.  Schindler  assigns  baptizatus,  in  aquam,  immersus, 
tinctus,  lotus  fuit :  to  baptize,  immerse  into  water,  dip. 
bathe. — See  Schind.  Lex.  Panteglot,  sub.  vc,  Hanover, 
1612.  Buxtorf  gives  baptizari,  intingi,  ablui,  abluere 
se :  to  baptize,  dip,  bathe  erne's  self. — See  Buxtorf  Lex. 
Chal.  est  Syr.  Basle,  1622.  Beza,  after  remarking  that 
baptizo  properly  means  to  immerse,  and  never  to  wash, 
except  as  a  consequence  of  immersion,  says:  '  JVor  does 
the  signification  of  amad,  which  the  Syrians  use  for  bap- 
tize, differ  at  all  from  this.' — See  Beza  Annot,  Mark  7,  4. 

"  Against  this  array  of  authorities,  1  apprehend  it  will 
require  something  more  than  mere  conjecture  to  set 
aside  the  established  and  acknowledged  meaning  of  this 
word. 

"  Ethiopic,  or  Abyssinian. — It  is  generally  agreed  that 
the  ancient  Abyssinian  version  in  the  Gheez,  or  dialect 
appropriated  to  religion,  should  be  dated  as  early  as  the 
introduction  of  Christianity  into  that  empire  ;  that  is, 
rather  earlier    than  the    middle  of  the  fourth  century. 


MS.    1'EUOBAi'TlST.  4-3 

This  version  translates  baptizo  by  tamak,  which  Castell 
says  agrees  (convenit  cum)  in  signification  with  tava  ; 
and  this  he  defines,  immersus,  demersus,  submersus,  fixus, 
infixus  fuit  ;  to  immerge,  demerge,  submerge,  fix,  mfix. 

"  Amharic. — The  version  in  the  Amharic  or  common 
dialect  of  Ethiopia,  renders  baptizo  by  the  same  word  as 
the  ancient  Ethiopic,  or  Gheez.  The  Amharic  version, 
published  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  in 
1822,  was  made  by  Mr.  Abraham,  a  learned  Ethiopian, 
under  the  superintendence  of  M.  Asselin,  the  French 
Vice  Consul  at  Cairo. 

"  Armenian,  Ancient. — The  ancient  Armenian  version 
is  universally  ascribed  to  Miesrob,  the  inventor  of  the 
Armenian  alphabet,  and  to  the  patriarch  Isaac,  at  the 
end  of  the  fourth,  or  early  in  the  fifth  century. — See 
Home's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  p.  208.  This  version  trans- 
lates baptizo  uniformly  by  Mugurdel,  which  is  also  em- 
ployed in  2d  Kings,  5,  14,  where  Naaman  is  said  to  have 
dipped  himself  in  the  Jordan.  This  word,  according  to 
Father  Pascal  Aucher,  signifies  'to  baptize  ;  to  wash  by 
plunging  into  water;'  and  it  is  applied  to  both  persons 
and  things. — See  Dictionary  of  Armenian  and  English, 
by  Father  Pascal  Aucher,  D.  D.,  Venice,  1825.  Also, 
Dictionary  of  the  Armenian  language  by  Mekitar  Varta- 
bed,  Venice,  1749. 

Armenian,  Modern. — The  modern  Armenian  version 
employs  the  same  word  as  the  ancient  Armenian  in 
translating  baptizo,  and  its  derivatives.  The  Russian 
Bible  Society,  and  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 


44  THE    TK1AL   Of 

have  printed  and  circulated  editions  of  both  the  ancient 
and  modern  Armenian  Scriptures. 

"  Georgian. — The  Georgian  version,  which,  according 
to  the  tradition  of  the  Greek  Church,  was  originally- 
made  in  the  eighth  century,  by  Euphemius,  the  Georgian, 
and  founder  of  the  Ibirian  or  Georgian  Monastery,  at 
Mount  Athos,  employs  the  word  nathlistemad,  as  a  trans- 
lation of  baptizo.  For  the  meaning  of  this  word,  I  have 
no  access  to  the  appropriate  Lexicons,  but  would  refer 
the  reader  to  the  authority  of  the  learned  Mr.  Robert 
Robinson,  who  states  that  all  the  ancient  eastern  versions 
render  the  Greek  word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  dipping. 
See  Rob.  Hist.  Bap.  p.  7,  London,  1790. 

"  Coptic. — The  Coptic  was  the  ancient  dialect  of  Lower 
Egypt.  The  Coptic  version  has  been  supposed  by  some 
to  have  been  executed  in  the  second  century.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  certain.  This  version  translates  baptizo  by 
tornas.  For  the  meaning  of  this  word,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  authority  of  Mr.  Robinson,  as  above,  and 
also  to  that  of  the  Baptist  Mission  Committee,  who,  in 
a  recent  official  document  addressed  to  the  committee  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  relating  to 
the  subject  of  translations,  expressly  mention  the  Coptic 
as  rendering  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  immersion. — See 
Annual  Report  of  the  English  Bap.  Miss.  Society,  for 
1844-,  p.  32. 

"  Sahidic. — TheSahidic  version,  or  that  in  the  dialect 
of  Upper  Egypt,  appears  from  the  arguments  adduced  by 
Dr.  Woide,  to  have  been  executed  at  the  beginning  of 
the  second   century.     It    is   unquestionably   one  of  the 


Mii.  PfiDOBAPTIST.  4«5 

oldest  versions  in  existence.  This  version  I  have  not 
seen.  For  the  manner  in  which  it  renders  baptizo,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  the  authority  of  Mr.  .Robinson,  as 
above. 

"Arabic— There  are  several  versions  of  the  Arabic  New 
Testament,  supposed  to  have  been  principally  executed 
between  the  seventh  and  the  eighth  centuries,  after  this 
language  had  supplanted  the  Syriac  and  Egyptian.  The 
Arabic  versions  render  baptizo  usually  by  amad,  tzabag, 
or  gatas.  '  Amad,'  according  to  Schindler,  '  signifies  the 
same  in  Arabic  as  in  Syriac,  baptizatus,  in  aquam  immer- 
sus,  tinctus,  Jotus  fuit :'  to  baptize,  immerse  into  water, 
dip,  bathe  ;  Castell,  '  ut  Syr.  baptizavit,'  the  same  as  the 
Syriac:  to  baptize;  Schaaf,  'tinxit,  baptizavit :'  to  dip, 
to  baptize.  'Tzabag,'  according  to  Castell,  is  'tinxit 
partem,  imbuet,  (lsa.  63,  4,)  immersit  manum  in  aquam, 
baptizavit  (per  immersionem :)  to  dip  as  bread  in  sauce, 
to  due,  to  immerse  as  the  hand  into  water,  to  baptize  by 
immersion.'  l  Gatas,1  according  to  Schindler,  is  'natavit, 
urinavit,  mersit,  submersit,  immersit  sub  aquam,  baptiza- 
vit:' to  stvim,  to  dive,  plunge,  submerge,  immerse  under 
water,  baptize. 

"  Persian. — The  Persian  translations  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament are  all  quite  modern.  The  Persian  designates 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  by  shastanah,  ghusl,  and  the 
derivative  of  amad.  The  two  former  express  ablution  ; 
the  last  has  the  same  meaning  in  the  Persian  as  in  the 
Arabic. 

"Turkish. — A  Turkish  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
by  Dr.    Lazarus   Seaman,   was  published  at  Oxford,  in 


46  THE    TRIAL   OF 

1666,  and  in  the  same  year  a  translation  of  the  whole 
Bible  into  the  Turkish  language  was  completed  by  Alber- 
tus  Boboosky,  interpreter  to  the  Porte.  This  manuscript 
remained  at  Leyden  unpublished,  till  Dr.  Pinkerton, 
having  ascertained  its  value,  recommended  it  to  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  at  whose  expense  the 
New  Testament  was  published  in  1819.  This  version 
designates  the  act  of  baptism  by  the  derivative  of  amad, 
the  same  word  that  is  used  in  the  Arabic  and  Persian, 
and  expressing  the  same  sense." 

The  witness  said  he  had  read  sufficient  from  the  Ap- 
pendix of  Stuart  on  Baptism,  in  relation  to  Eastern  trans- 
lations of  the  Scriptures,  to  show  the  mind  of  the  trans- 
lators concerning  the  import  of  baptizo. 

TRANSLATION    OF    BAPTIZO    IN    WESTERN    VERSIONS. 

Q. — Please  give  us  a  short  account  of  the  Ancient  and 
Modern  Western  versions,  except  the  English. 

A. — "  Latin. — Numerous  translations  of  the  Scriptures 
were  made  into  the  Latin  language,  at  the  first  intro- 
duction of  Christianity,  while  the  Greek  was  yet  per- 
fectly understood,  although  it  was  being  gradually  sup- 
planted as  a  general  language.  The  most  important  of 
these,  and  the  one  which  appears  to  have  acquired  a 
more  extensive  circulation  than  the  rest,  was  usually 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Itala,  or  old  Italic,  and  was 
unquestionably  executed  in  the  early  part  of  the  second 
century.  This  version  adopts  the  Greek  word  baptizo. 
Let  it  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  Greek,  although 


IUK.  PEUOBAPTIST.  47 

the  Latin  was  gradually  supplanting-  it,  was  at  this  time 
understood  and  used  as  a  general  language  over  Italy, 
Persia,  Syria  and  Egypt,  and  indeed  throughout  almost 
the  whole  world.  Add  to  this,  that  the  earliest  ecclesi- 
astical writers,  and  perhaps  the  very  authors  of  this  ver- 
sion, were  of  Greek  origin.  Under  these  circumstances, 
it  cannot  be  thought  surprising  that  this  word  should 
have  passed  from  one  language  into  the  other.  Its  mean- 
ing, however,  was  as  definitely  settled  and  as  well  un- 
derstood in  Latin  as  in  Greek  usage;  and  the  construc- 
tion that  they  employed  shows  most  conclusively  that  it 
was  accepted  in  the  sense  of  immersion  *  *  *  *.  Al- 
most all  the  Latin  interpreters,  whether  Catholic  or  Pro- 
testant, have  followed  the  earlier  translators  in  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Greek  word.  Some  of  the  most  recent  and 
be*t,  however,  translate  bcvptizo  by  an  appropriate  Latin 
word.  Jaspiz,  an  eminent  German  scholar  and  critic, 
in  his  version  of  the  epistles,  renders  it  either  by  immerge, 
to  immerse,  tingo,  to  dip,  or  some  equivalent  expression. 
Prof.  H.  A.  Schott,  in  bis  critical  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  accompanied  with  a  Latin  translation,  ren- 
ders the  word  in  all  cases  by  immergo,  whether  relating 
to  the  Christian  rite  or  not.  • 

"Gothic. — The  Gothic  version  was  made  from  the 
Greek,  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  This 
version,  as  far  as  appears,  renders  baptizo  in  all  cases  by 
daupyan,  to  dip.  Cases  not  relating  to  the  Christian 
rite,  exhibit  the  same  principle.  Thus,  Marc.  7:  4,  is 
rendered  :  'And  when  they  came  from  market,  ni  dau- 
pyand,  unless   they  dip  they  eat  not ;    and  many  other 


4s  use  xaiAi.  oj- 

things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as 
daupeinins,  the  dippings  of  cups  and  pots,'  &c. 

German. — Luther's  inestimable  and  much  admired 
translation  was  published  in  detached  portions  at  various 
intervals,  from  1522  to  1532.  The  Catholic  versions, 
by  Detemberger  and  Emser,  appeared  soon  after  that  of 
Luther,  and  in  1630,  that  by  Casper  Ulenburg.  All  these 
versions  translate  baptizo  by  taufm,  a  dialectical  varia- 
tion of  the  Gothic  daupyan,  and  signifying  to  immerse. 

"  German  Swiss. — The  versions  in  this  language  trans- 
late baptizo  by  taufen,  signifying  to  immerse. 

"  Belgian. — The  Belgian  versions  translate  baptizo  by 
doopen,  which  is  a  dialectical  form  of  the  word  tan-fen^ 
and  signifies  to  dip . 

"  Danish. — The  earliest  Danish  version  was  made  from 
the  Latin  vulgate.  The  next  was  executed  from  Luther's 
German  version.  The  Danish  translate  baptizo  by  dobet 
which  is  a  dialectical  form  of  the  Goth,  daupyan,  and  the 
German,  taufe?i,  and  signifies  to  dip. 

"Swedish. — This  version  was  originally  made  from 
Luther's  German  translation.  The  Swedish  renders  bap- 
tizo by  dopa,  a  dialectical  variation  of  lobe,  and  signify- 
ing to  dip.  . 

"  Welsh. — The  Welsh  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  originally  made  by  order  of  Parliament,  and 
first  published  in  1567.  The  Welsh  translates  baptizo 
by  bedyddio,  to  immerse.  This  signification  is  sustained 
by  Edward  Lhuyd,  A.  M.,  a  learned  Welshman.  His 
language  is:  '  Bedydd,  the  Welsh  word  for  baptism,  is 
derived   from   suddiant,  a   British  word,  which   is  well 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  49 

known  to  signify  dipping  or  immersion,  and  the  verb  of 
which  is  soddi  or  suddo."  See  Article  Baptisma,  in 
Lhuyd's  Arch.  Brit. 

"  Sclavonian. — The  Sclavonian  or  old  Russian  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament,  was  made  from  the  origi- 
nal Greek  in  the  ninth  century.  The  Russians,  being 
a  branch  of  the  Greek  church,  practice  immersion  in 
all  ordinary  cases;  but  the  ceremony  of  making  the 
sign  of  the  cross  upon  the  candidate  in  connection 
with  immersion,  had  come  to  be  regarded  in  the  time  of 
Cyril  and  Methodius,  as  the  more  important  ceremony 
of  the  two,  and  absolutely  essential  to  the  ordinance. — 
Their  version,  therefore,  does  not  in  fact  translate  bap. 
tizo  at  all,  but  substitutes  the  term  krestit,  to  cross.'''' 

These  authorities  (said  the  witness)  are  a  sufficient 
answer  to  your  question. 

THE  ENGLISH  TRANSLATION. 

Q. — How  often  do  you  find  baptizo  in  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tures, transferred  or  translated  in  the  English  translation  % 

A. — There  are  more  than  a  hundred  instances,  in 
which  the  verb  baptizo  and  the  noun  baptismos  occurs. 

Q. — Why  did  you  not  translate  baptizo,  when  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christian  Baptism  was  named  or  spoken  oil 

A. — We  were  ordered  by  King  James  to  retain  the  old 
ecclesiastical  words,  of  which  baptism  was  one. — Hist. 
Eng.  Tran.  p.  317. 

Q. — Does  not  baptizo  occur  in  the  Greek  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  have  you  not  rendered  it 
"  dipped"  in  our  version,  (2  Kings,  5  :  14,)  where  it  says: 


DO  1IIE    TRIAL    OF 

"Naamah  went  down  and  dipped  himself  (ebaplisato) 
seven  times  in  Jordan  1"  Why  did  you  not  so  render  it 
in  the  JS'ew  Testament '? 

A. — Instructions  from  the  King  and  our  practice  for- 
bade it, 

Q. — Did  not  Professor  Stuart  translate  the  only  two 
occurrences  of  the  word  in  the  Oid  Testament  1 

A. — Yes  sir.  The  first  by  "  plunged"  in  2  Kings  5:14; 
the  second  by  "  overwhelmed,"  as  its  figurative  meaning 
in  Isa.  21  :  4. — Stuart  on  Bap.  p.  II. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  translate  baptizo  by  sprinkle  or 
pour,  for  1800  years  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  eral 

A. — Not  in  a  solitary  instance. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Did  not  Dr.  Rice,  in  his  debate  on  baptism 
•with  A.  Campbell,  prove  that  the  Authors  of  the  Peshito 
Syriac  version,  did  translate  bebammenon,  a  passive  parti- 
ciple of  bapto,  in  Rev.  19 :  13,  by  "  sprinkled  with  blood  V 

A.- — I  had  understood  the  only  question  to  be  testified 
to  at  this  time,  was,  how  baptizo  was  translated  and  not 
bapto.  My  answer  is  still  well  founded,  that  there  was 
no  translation  of  baptizo  by  sprinkle  or  pour  for  eighteen 
hundred  years;  and  it  is  also  true  of  the  Peshito  Syriac 
translation;  for  in  that  translation  you  will  find  no  book 
of  Revelation.  This  fact  is  supported  by  the  following 
Pedobaptist  authorities  ; 

Bp.  Home:  "For  the  Apocalypse  was  not  translated 
into  Syriac  until  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century." — In 
tro.  Stud.  Scrip,  vol.  4,  p.  483. 

Dr.  A.  Clark:  "The  second    and  third  of  John  are 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  51 

wanting,  the  second  of  Peter,  and  the  epistle  of  Jude,  and 
the  Kevelation.  None  of  these  are  acknowledged  by  any 
copy  of  the  ancient  Syriac  version.  This  version  (Peshito) 
was  made  probably  between  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries."— Intro.  JV*.  T.,  p.  10. 

Professors  Storr  and  Flatt :  «  The  Kevelation  of  St. 
John  is  wanting  in  the  Peshito  or  old  Syriac  version. "— 
Bib.Theol.  p.  68. 

Professor  Schmucker:  "It,  (Peshito,)  however,  does 
not  embrace  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  but 
contains  only  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
all  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  first  epistle  of  St.  John 
and  St.  Peter,  and  the  epistle  of  St.  James." 

Q. — Why  was  not  this  statement  of  the  case  made  to 
Dr.  Rice  at  the  time  l 

A. — I  cannot  tell 

Q. — Did  not  Jerome  translate  baptizo  by  wash  1 

A. — In  one  solitary  instance,  to  be  found  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate. — 2  Kings,  5  14>. 

Q. — Have  you  not,  in  the  English  translation,  given 
wash  where  baptizo  is  found  in  the  Septuagint  1 

A. — In  the  following  places,  Judith  12:  7.  Sirach  31: 
25.  Mark  7:  3,  4.  Luke  11:  38.  Heb.  9:  10. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Does  wash  belong  to  the  family  of  baptizo  1 

A. — No  sir — It  belongs  to  a  different  family  of  words. 

Q. — Does  the  use  of  baptize  and  wash,  in  the  language, 
make  them  convertable  1 

A. — I  know  of  no  such  authority. 

Q. — Why  did  you,  in  the  cases  named,  translate  bap- 
tizo by  wash  ? 


0%  THE    TRIAL    OF 

A. — We  were  practically  opposed  to  immersion. 

Q. — Is  baptizo  any  where  in  the  Scriptures  used,  when 
Wash  is  commanded  % 

A. — No  where.  The  words  used  are  luou,  nipto,  and 
pluno. 

Q. — Were  not  the  English  translators  the  particular 
friends  of  the  Prisoner,  and  did  they  not  do  all  they 
could,  consistently  with  their  duty  as  translators,  to  clear 
him  of  the  charge  we  have  preferred  against  him  1 

A. — His  conviction  will  implicate  them  for  a  want 
of  loyalty  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country."  In  this 
fact,  may  be  found  the  reason  of  their  conduct. 

PROSELYTE  BAPTISM. 

The  Counsel  for  the  prosecution  said  he  would  now 
offer  a  few  witnesses  to  show  how  the  Jews  understood 
Baptism,  when  they  used  it  for  introducing  proselytes 
into  their  communion : 

Professor  Stuart :  "  The  baptism  of  proselytes,  among 
the  Jews,  was  by  immersion.  To  cite  authorities  to  this 
purpose  is  needless.  They  may  be  seen  in  Lightfoot, 
Hor.  Heb.  p.  269 ;  in  Danz.  (Meuchen  Nov.  Test,  etc.,) 
p.  283,"— Stuart  Bap.  p.  142. 

Bp.  Home  :  "The  Jews  had  two  sorts  of  washing; 
one — of  the  whole  body,  by  immersion,  which  was  used 
by  the  priests  at  their  consecration,  and  by  the  prose- 
lytes at  their  initiation." — Hor^s.  Intro,  p.  335. 

Professor  Mill :  "  We  apply  the  word  ordinances  or 
sacraments  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper ;  the  first, 
a  rite  borrowed   from  the  Jewish  custom  of  plunging 


MR.   PED0BAPTIST.  53 

• 

into  water  the  proselytes  from  heathenism  to  the  law  of 
Moses." — Hill's  Divinity,  p.  186. 

Mr,  Marchant :  "The  form  of  baptism  among  the 
Jews  was  plunging  the  whole  body  under  water." — 
Booth,  p.  248. 

Dr.  Lightfoot :  "  The  baptism  of  John  was  by  plunging 
the  body,  (after  the  same  manner  as  the  washing  of  un- 
clean persons,  and  the  baptism  of  proselytes.") — davit's 
Com.  Mark  16th. 

Dr.  A.  Clark:  "But  as  the  Jewish  custom  required 
the  persons  to  stand  in  the  water,  and  having  been  in- 
structed and  entered  into  covenant  to  renounce  all  idola- 
try, and  take  the  God  of  Israel  for  their  God,  then  plunge 
themselves  under  the  water.'" — Com.  John  3:  23. 

Bp.  Hoadly :  "  Proselytes,  (in  baptism)  were  first 
covered  with  water,  and  in  a  state,  as  it  were,  of  death 
and  inactivity ;  and  then  arose  out  of  it  into  a  sort  of  a 
new  state  of  life  and  action." — Booth,  p.  170. 

Dr.  Brown  :  "  To  instruct  them  (proselytes)  in  the 
nature  of  baptism,  and  to  see  that  it  was  legally  per- 
formed: for  their  tradition  required  that  they  should 
be  dipped  completely  in  a  confluence  of  water,  or  in  a 
vessel." — Brown's  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  p.  629. 

The  counsel  said  he  would  next  offer  a  class  of  wit- 
nesses, whose  independent  testimony  would  confirm  that 
of  the  former  witnesses. 

INDEPENDENT    WITNESSES. 

Dr.  Charles  Anthon,  (of  Columbia  College,  New  York,) 
was  called  and  qualified. 


54 


THE    TRIAL    Oh' 


Q.  C.  Pro. — Let  us  hear  from  you  on  the  meaning  of 
baptizo  ? 

A. — The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  (baptizo)  is, 
to  dip  or  immerse,  and  its  secondary  meaning,  if  it  ever 
had  any,  all  refers,  in  some  way  or  other,  to  this  lead- 
ing idea ;  sprinkling,  &c,  are  entirely  out  of  the  ques- 
tion."— Intro.  Stuart,  on  Bap.,  p.  7. 

Witsius,  (a  very  learned  and  eminent  divine  of  North 
Holland.)  "  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  native  signi- 
fication of  the  word  baptein  and  baptizein,  is  to  plunge, 
to  dip.  So  that  it  is,  doubtless,  more  than  epipolazein, 
which  is  to  swim  lightly  on  the  surface  ;  but  less  than 
dunein,-  which  is  to  go  down  to  the  bottom  and  be  de- 
stroyed."— Booth,  p.  44. 

Salmasius,  (an  eminent  French  scholar.)  "Baptism 
is  immersion,  and  was  administered  in  ancient  times, 
according  to  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  word.  Now 
it  is  only  rhantism,  or  sprinkling,  not  immersion,  or  dip- 
ping."— Ibid. 

Mr.  Selden :  "In  England,  of  late  years,  1  ever 
thought  the  parson  baptized  his  own  fingers,  rather  than 
the  child."—  Ibid. 

Vitringa:  "The  act  of  baptizing,  is  the  immersion 
of  believers  in  water."  This  expresses  the  force  of  the 
word.  Thus  also  it  was  performed  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles." — Ibid,  47. 

Trommius  :  "Baptizo,  to  baptize  j  to  immerse,  to 
dip."— Ibid,  p.  62. 

Grotius:  (an  eminent  scholar  of  Holland.)  "Buried 
with,  him  by  baptism.     Not  only  the  word  baptism,  but 


bUl.  i'EJUOBAI'TIST.  55 

the  very  form  of  it  intimates  this.  For  an  immersion 
of  the  whole  body  in  water,  so  that  it  is  no  longer  be- 
held, bears  an  image  of  that  burial  which  is  given  to 
the  dead. — So  Col.  ii.  12.  There  was  in  baptism,  as 
administered  in  former  times,  an  image  both  of  a  burial 
and  of  a  resurrection,  which,  in  respect  of  Christ,  was 
external ;  in  regard  to  Christians,  internal — Rom.  6:  4." 
Booth,  p.  156. 

Dr.  Porson:  "Not  long  before  the  death  of  Profes- 
sor Poison,  I  went,"  states  Dr.  Newman,  "  in  company 
with  a  much  respected  friend,  to  see  the  celebrated 
scholar  at  the  London  Institution.  I  inquired  whether, 
in  his  opinion,  baptizo  must  be  considered  equal  to  bapto, 
which,  he  said,  was  to  tinge,  as  dyers.  He  replied  to 
this  effect:  That  if  there  be  a  difference,  he  should 
take  the  former  to  be  the  strongest.  He  fully  assured 
me  that  it  signified  a  total  immersion.'''' — Carson,  p.  20. 

.Richardson  :  (a  learned  English  Lexicographer.)  "  He 
defines  the  word  '  to  dip  or  merge  frequently,  to  sink,  to 
plunge,  to  immerse.' " — Debate  C.  and  R.,  p.  173^ 

"  Dr.  Johnson  argued  in  defence  of  some  of  the  pecu- 
liar tenets  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  As  to  giving  the 
bread  only  to  the  laity,  he  said,  '  they  may  think  that 
in  what  is  merely  ritual,  deviations  from  the  primitive 
mode  may  be  admitted  on  the  ground  of  convenience  ; 
and  I  think  they  are  as  well  warranted  to  make  this 
alteration  as  we  are  to  substitute  sprinkling  in  the  room 
of  the  ancient  baptism.'  " — BoswelL 

Sir  Peter  King:  "  To  me  it  seems  evident,  that  their 
(the  Primitive  Christians)  usual  custom  Was  to  immerse 


56  THE   TRIAL   OF 

or   dip  the  whole  body." — Constitu,  Prim.  ChwcA,$&it> 
11.  Chap.  IV. 

GERMAN  WITNESSES. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff  next  called  the  name  of 
Martin  Luther.  All  eyes  were  immediately  directed 
to  the  spot,  where  the  venerable  Reformer  would  emerge 
from  the  crowd  and  be  open  to  the  observation  of  all. 
Quite  an  excitement  was  created  when  he  made  his  ap- 
pearance on  the  witness  stand.  He  looked  as  bold  and 
daring  as  he  did  when  he  stood  before  his  enemies  at 
the  Diet  held  at  Worms.  After  being  qualified,  the  ex- 
amination commenced. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — We  wish  you  to  give  your  knowledge  of 
the  meaning  of  baptizo,  and  its  use  when  applied  to  the 
institution  of  Christian  Baptism. 

A.- — "  Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  may  be  translated 
immerse,  as  when  we  immerse  something  in  water,  that 
it  may  be  wholly  covered.  And  although  it  is  almost 
wholly  abolished,  (for  they  do  not  dip  the  whole  children, 
but  pour  a  little  water  on  them,)  they  ought,  neverthe- 
less, to  be  wholly  immersed  and  immediately  drawn  out, 
for  that  the  etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  demand.'* 
"  The  Germans  call  baptism  tauff,  from  depth,  which  in 
their  language  they  call  teeff,  because  it  is  proper  that 
those  who  are  baptized  be  deeply  immersed."  In  the 
Smalcold  articles,  (drawn  up  by  him,)  "  Baptism  is  no- 
thing else  than  the  word  of  God  with  immersion  in 
water,"  Again — u  Washing  from  sins  is  attributed  to 
baptism;  it  is  truly,  indeed,  attributed,  but  the  s%nifi- 


MR.  I'EDOBAPTIST.  57 

cation  is  softer  and  slower  than  it  can  express  baptism, 
which  is  rather  a  sign  both  of  death  and  resurrection. 
Being  moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  who  are 
to  be  baptized,  to  be  altogether  dipt  into  water,  as  the 
word  doth  sound  and  the  mystery  doth  signify." — Luth. 
Op.  vol.  1,  p.  336. — Hinton,  p.  52. 

Q. — Did  you  not,  in  a  letter  called  for  by  John  Fritz 
and  other  ministers,  seeking  your  judgment  about  sprink- 
ling being  used  as  baptism  at  Hamburgh,  declare  it  to  be 
an  abuse  of  baptism  1 

A. — Yes  sir.     Crosby's  His.  of  the  Bap.  p.  21. — Ibid. 

Q. — Did  you  not  wish  to  restore  immersion  to  bap- 
tism  \ 

A.— Yes  sir.  Opp.  Lip.  1792,  vol.  17,  pp.  272,536— 
Storr  #  Flatt,  p.  5 14. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — You  are  aware  that  the  Lutheran  Church 
follows  the  practice  of  the  Prisoner.  Is  she  not  keeping 
the  spirit  of  the  law  % 

A. — She  is  of  age,  and  is  able  to  answer  for  herself. 

Q. — Did  you  not  consider  sprinkling  and  pouring  in 
baptism  valid  I 

A. — I  did,  under  the  circumstances. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Will  you  please  to  give  some  German 
authorities  in  confirmation  of  your  position  on  the  action 
of  Christian  Baptism  1 

A. — The  following  will  answer  all  you  desire: 

Melancthon:  "  Baptism  is  an  entire  action,  to  wit:  a 
dipping  and  pronouncing  these  words,  I  baptize  thee," 
&c. — Remington  on  Bap.  p.  8. 

Buddeus:  "The  words  baptizein  and    baptismos,  are 


58  THE    TRIAL    OF 

not  to  be  interpreted  of  aspersion,  but  always  of  immer- 
sion."—Theol.  Dog.  L.  V.  C.  Booth,  p.  45. 

Zanchius :  (Professor  of  Divinity  at  Heidleburg.)  "  The 
proper  signification  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse,  plunge 
under,  to  overwhelm  in  water."  Mr.  de  Courcy  tells  us 
the  opinion  of  Zanchius  is  worth  a  thousand  others. — 
Booth,  p.  48. 

Professor  Fritsche,  a  disciple  of  Herman,  in  his  Com. 
on  Matt.  3:  6,  says:  "That  baptism  was  performed  not 
by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion,  is  evident,  not  only 
from  the  nature  of  the  word,  but  from  Rom.  6:  4."— 
Hinton,  p.  55. 

Augusti,  vol.  V.  p.  5  :  "  The  word  baptism,  according" 
to  etymology  and  tisage,  signifies  to  immerse,  submerge, 
&c.  i  and  the  choice  of  the  expression  betrays  an  age  in 
which  the  latter  custom  of  sprinkling  had  not  been  intro- 
duced."— Ibid. 

Brenner,  p.  1 :  "  The  word  corresponds  in  signification 
with  the  German  word,  taufen,  to  sink  into  the  deep." — 
Ibid. 

Bretschneider,  in  his  Theology  of  1828,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
673  and  681.  "An  entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  na- 
ture of  baptism.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word." — 
Ibid. 

Paullus,  in  his  Com.  vol.  i,  p.  278,  says:  "The  word 
baptize  signifies,  in  Greek,  sometimes  to  immerse,  some- 
times to  stibmerge." — Ibid.      ^ 

Rheinhard's  .Ethics,  vol.  V.  p.  79.  "  In  sprinkling,  the 
symbolical  meaning  ©f  the  ordinance  is  wholly  lost." — 
Ibid, 


MR.  PEDOBAI'TIST.  59 

Schleusner,  in  his  Lex.  on  baptisma:  "Those  who 
were  to  be  baptized  were  anciently  immersed"  Indeed, 
the  three  New  Testament  lexicographers,  Schleusner, 
Wahl  and  Bretschneider,  limit  baptism  as  a  sacred  ordi- 
nance to  immersion. — Ibid,  p.  56. 

Sholz,  on  Matt.  iii.  6  :  "  Baptism  consists  in  the  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  in  water  " — Ibid. 

Professor  Lange,  on  Infant  Baptism',  of  1S34-,  p.  81 : 
"Baptism  in  the  apostolic  age  was  t  propel  baptism — 
the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water." — "As-  Christ  died, 
so  we  die  (to  sin)  with  him  in  baptism.  The  body  is, 
as  it  were,  buried  under  water,  is  dead  with  Christ ;  the 
plunging  under  water  represents  death,  and  rising  out  of 
it  the  resurrection  to  a  new  life.  A  more  striking  sym- 
bol could  not  be  chosen." — Ibid. 

The  author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  on  Baptism,  p.  36, 
says :  "  The  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the  apostles 
were  performed  in  precisely  the  same  way,"  i.  «.,  the 
candidate  was  completely  immersed  under  water.  Speaking 
of  Rom.  6  :  4,  and  Gal.  3  :  27,  he  says  :  "  What  becomes 
of  all  these  beautiful  images,  when,  as  at  the  present 
day,  baptism  is  administered  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling Vy—Ibid. 

Rosenmuller,  Koppe  and  Bloomfield,  all  hold  the  same 
strong  language  on  this  subject.  We  will  quote  only  the 
last,  as  he  includes  the  others.  In  his  Critical  Digest 
on  Rom.  6:  4,  he  says  :  "  There  is  here  plainly  a  reference 
to  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion ;  and  I 
agree  with  Kopp  and  Rosenmuller,  that  there  is  reason 
to  regret  it  should  have  been  abandoned  in  most  Christian 


60  THE   TRIAL   OF 

churches,  especially,  as  it  has  so  evidently  a  reference 
to  the  mystic  sense  of  baptism." — Ibid,  p.  57. 

Storr  and  Flatt,  in  their  Biblical  Theology,  p.  513, 
say :  "  The  disciples  of  our  Lord  could  understand  his 
command  in  no  other  manner,  than  enjoining  immersion  ; 
for  the  baptism  of  John,  to  which  Jesus  himself  submit- 
ted, and  also  the  earlier  baptism  (John  4< :  1)  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus,  were  performed  by  dipping  the  subjects 
into  cold  water;  as  is  evident  from  the  following  pass- 
ages: Matt.  3:  6,  John  3:  £3.  And  that  they  actually 
did  understand  it  so,  is  proved,  partly  by  those  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  allude  to  immersion — 
and  partly  from  the  fact,  that  immersion  was  so  cus- 
tomary in  the  ancient  church." 

JNeander,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Judd,  says  :  "As  to  your 
question  on  the  original  rite  of  baptism,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  whatever  that  in  primitive  times  it  was  performed 
by  immersion,  to  signify  a  complete  immersion  into  the 
new  principle  of  the  divine  life  which  was  to  be  imparted 
by  the  Messiah." — Hinton,  p.  57. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Did  you  not  consider  the  practice  of  the 
Germans,  to  be  valid  baptism  % 

A. — Yes  sir,  for  the  alteration  had  taken  place  in  the 
action  of  baptism  long  before  our  day. 

PRESBYTERIAN    WITNESSES. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Commonwealth  next  arose  and  said 
he  would  offer  his  second  class  of  Pedobaptist  witnesses, 
known  as  Presbyterians. 

John  Calvin  was  called  and  qualified. 


MR.  PED0BAPTI8T.  bi 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Will  you  please  to  inform  us  what  is  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  Constitution,  and  what  was 
the  practice  under  its  first  appointment  1 

A. — "  The  very  word  baptize,  however,  signifies  to  im- 
merse; and  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice 
of  the  ancient  church." — Insti.  vol.  3,  p.  343. 

Again  :  "  He  as  truly  and  certainly  performs  these 
things  internally  on  our  souls,  as  we  see  that  our  bodies 
are  externally  washed,  immersed  and  enclosed  in  water — 
Ibid,  p.  337. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Did  you  not  teach  and  practice  sprinkling 
and  pouring  of  water  upon  a  suitable  subject,  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  command  in  the 
Constitution  1 

The  C.  for  the  Pro.  arose,  and  objected  to  this  kind  of 
evidence  being  offered  as  admissable.  For  (he  said)  we 
are  not  here  to  inquire  into  the  opinions  of  the  witness. 
His  opinion  cannot  be  evidence  when  a  question  of  fact 
is  before  the  Court  and  jury.  The  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  Prisoner  can  only  be  made  out  by  the  facts  elicited 
from  the  witnesses,  and  not  by  their  opinions.  This 
objection  to  this  kind  of  testimony  is  sustained  by  all 
good  authority.  For  us  to  receive  his  opinion,  and 
likewise  of  all  others,  as  evidence,  will  be  to  put  an  end 
to  all  judicial  proceedings,  and  constitutional  law  will 
become  a  nameless  thing.  I  wish  to  throw  no  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  the  acquittal  of  the  Prisoner,  but  those 
that  the  law  and  evidence  place  in  his  way.  My  duty 
to  my  client,  and  the  obligation  I  have  taken  before  my 
country,  compel  me  to  object  to  this  kind  of  evidence. 


62  THE    TRIAL    OF 

The  C.  for  the  Pri.  arose  and  said :  We  think  the 
Court  ought  to  permit  this  question  to  be  answered,  and 
the  answer  to  go  to  the  jury  as  evidence.  For  a  man  so 
learned  as  the  witness  and  so  faithful  to  the  government, 
would  not  depart  from  the  spirit  of  the  law.  Many  of 
our  most  eminent  citizens,  entertain  a  common  senti- 
ment with  the  witness  and  the  Prisoner.  Will  not  their 
judgment,  of  what  is  a  fulfillment  of  the  law  of  baptism, 
be  admitted  as  evidence  ]  Are  they  not  as  competent  to 
determine  this  question  as  any  others  in  the  land  %  To 
refuse  their  judgment,  will  be  a  great  wrong  done  to  the 
Prisoner,  and  it  will  be  a  practical  impeachment  of  the 
loyalty  of  the  witness  to  thejgovemment.  It  is  due  to 
the  Prisoner,  whose  all  is  at  stake  in  the  issue  of  this 
trial,  to  permit  the  question  to  be  answered. 

I  was  astonished  to  hear  the  counsel  object  to  the 
question  being  answered.  To  facilitate  this  trial,  1 
suspended  the  discussion  of  bapto  in  its  relation  to  baptizo. 
This  favor  of  mine  ought  to  have  been  reciprocated,  by 
affording  every  means  accessible  to  us  for  a  clear  under- 
standing of  this  controversy.  I  hope  the  Court  will 
take  this  view  of  the  question  and  permit  it  to  be  an- 
swered, and  the  answer  go  to  the  jury. 

The  Court  replied  :  We  are  here  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  Lawgiver,  when  he  incorporated  baptizo, 
in  the  Christian  Ordinance.  All  the  facts  that  will  put 
us  in  possession  of  this  knowledge,  will  clearly  be 
admissable.  If  the  opinions  of  the  witnesses  are  to  be 
admitted  as  testimony,  and  what  they  think  will  answer 
the  claims  of  any  law  be  taken  as  its  just  meaning,  we 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  63 

will  be  establishing  a  principle  which  will  practically- 
lead  to  the  abrogation  of  all  law.  The  Prisoner's  plea, 
according  to  this  principle,  would  be  equivalent  to  an 
acquittal.  Judicial  examinations  must  cease  after  the 
plea  is  entered.  Are  we  all  prepared  for  the  alternative 
which  follows  the  adoption  of  "this  principle  for  our 
guidance!  I  think  not.  Government  is  too  valuable  to 
us  all  for  us  to  sell  it  at  such  a  price. 

How  could  a  jury  on  their  oaths  decide  as  to  the  vio- 
lation of  any  of  our  laws,  if  the  opinions  of  Prisoners 
and  their  friends  were  to  be  taken  as  legal  evidence  1 
We  could  not,  according  to  this  principle,  convict  a  sin- 
gle violator  of  the  law. 

If  the  witness  can  testify  that  the  word  haptizo  in  the 
law  of  baptism  does  signify  to  sprinkle,  pour  or  wash, 
or  that  the  Lawgiver  in  selecting  this  word,  intended  to 
command  no  particular  action  in  baptism,  it  will  be  ad- 
missable. 

Q. — I  will  propose  the  question  in  another  form,  that 
will  not  be  liable  to  the  objection  of  the  Court.  Do  you 
not  consider  baptism  by  sprinkling,  &c,  valid  and  good  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

The  counsel  for  the  prosecution  said,  we  offer  the  fol- 
lowing Presbyterian  authorities  to  confirm  Mr.  Calvin's 
testimony : 

Theodore  Beza,  (the  successor  of  Calvin  at  Geneva.) 
"  On  Mark  7.  4  :  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized ; 
by  which  word  it  is  certain  immersion  is  signified  ;  bap- 
tizesthai,  in  this  place,  is  more  than  niptien  ;  because 
that  seems  to  respect  the  whole  body,  this  only  the  hands, 


64  THE   TRIAL   OF 

Nor  does  baptizen  signify  to  wash,  except  by  conse- 
quence; for  it  properly  signifies  to  immerse  for  the  sake 
of  dyeing.  To  be  baptized  in  water,  signifies  no  other 
than  to  be  immersed  in  water,  which  is  the  external  cere- 
mony of  baptism.  Baptizo  differs  from  the  verb  dunai, 
which  signifies,  to  plunge  in  the  deep  and  to  drown." — 
Epistola  II.,  ad  Thorn.  Til.  Anno. — Hinton,  p.  53. 

Turretine  (also  of  Geneva)  says :  "  The  word  bap- 
tism is  of  Greek  origin,  and  is  derived  from  the  verb 
bapto,  which  signifies  to  dip  and  to  dye  :  Baptizein,  to. 
baptize  ;  to  dip  into,  to  immerse." — Booth,  p.  55. 

Casaubon  (Greek  Professor  at  Geneva)  says:  "This 
was  the  rite  of  baptizing,  that  persons  were  plunged  into 
the  water;  which  the  very  word  baptizein,  to  baptize, 
sufficiently  declares.  Which,  as  it  does  not  signify 
dunein,  to  sink  to  the  bottom  and  perish  ;  so,  doubtless,  it 
is  not  epipolazein,  to  swim  on  the  surface.  For  these 
three  words,  epipolazein,  baptizein  and  dunein  are  of 
different  significations.  Whence  we  understand  it  was 
not  without  reason,  that  some,  long  ago,  insisted  on  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  ceremony  of  bap- 
tism ;  for  they  urge  the  word  baptizein,  to  baptize." — 
Ibid,  p.  49. 

Dr.  G.  Campbell,  (Principal  of  Marischal  College  :) 
"The  word  baptizein,  both  in  sacred  authors  and,  classical 
signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse,  and  was  rendered 
by  Turtullian,  the  oldest  of  the  Latin  fathers,  tingere, 
the  term  used  for  dyeing  cloth,  which  was  by  immersion. 
It  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  meaning." — Campi- 
beWs  Dissert,,  vol.  4,  p.  128,  and  p.  24. 


MR.  I'EDOBAPTIST. 


Dr.  J.  M'Night  (an  eminent  Scotch  divine  and  critic) 
says :  "  In  baptism,  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Chris- 
tian church,  the  baptized  person  is  buried  under  the  \va" 
ter,  as  one  put  to  death  with  Christ  on  account  of  sin, 
in  order  that  he  may  be  strongly  impressed  with  a  sense 
of  the  malignity  of  sin,  and  excited  to  hate  it  as  the 
greatest  of  evils,  ver.  3.  Moreover,  in  the  same  rite, 
the  baptized  person  being  raised  up  out  of  the  water, 
after  being  washed,  he  is  thereby  taught  that  he  shall  be 
raised,"  &c. 

"  Christ's  baptism  was  not  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
for  he  never  committed  any  sin  ;  but,  as  was  observed, 
Prelim.  Ess.  1,  at  the  beginning,  he  submitted  to  be  bap- 
tised, that  is,  to  be  buried  under  the  water,  by  John,  and 
to  be  raised  out  of  it  again,  as  an  emblem  of  his  future 
death  and  resurrection.  In  like  manner  the  baptism  of 
believers  is  emblematical  of  their  own  death,  burial  and 
resurrection." — See  on  Col.  2,  12. 

Dr.  George  Hill,  (Principal  of  St.  Mary's  College,  St. 
Andrews.)  "  We  apply  the  word  ordinances  or  sacra- 
ments to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  the  first,  a  rite 
borrowed  from  the  Jewish  custom  of  plunging  into  water 
the  proselytes  from  heathenism  to  the  law  of  Moses,  but 
consecrated  by  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  the  universal 
practice  of  his  disciples,  as  the  mode  of  admitting  mem- 
bers into  the  Christian  church." — HilVs  Divinity,  page 
186. 

M.  Stuart  (Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Andover)  says  :  "  Bapto  and  baptiza 
moan  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerge,  into  any  thing  liquid. 


THE    TRIAL    OF 


All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note  are  agreed  in 
this." — Stuart  Bap.,  p.  51. 

President  Beecher  says  :  "  1  fully  admit  in  innumera- 
ble cases  it  clearly  denotes  to  immerse,  in  which  case 
an  agent  submerges  partially  or  totally,  some  person  or 
thing.  This  is  so  notoriously  true,  that  I  need  attempt  no 
proof." — Hinton,  p.  18.     * 

Dr.  Chalmers  (Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University 
of  Edinburg)  says  :  "  The  original  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism,  is  immersion.  We  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent 
style  of  the  administration  in  the  Apostles'  days,  was 
by  an  actual  submerging  of  the  whole  body  under  water." 
Lectures,  Pom.  6.  >. 

The  counsel  for  the  Prisoner  said  he  would  like  to  ask 
some  of  the  last  witnesses  a  few  questions,  before  any 
more  witnesses  are  brought  forward. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — President  Beecher,  have  you  not  in  your 
work  on  baptism,  made  boptismos  synonymous  with  kath- 
arismos,  which  signifies  purification! 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — Professor  Stuart,  have  you  not  thought  that  bap- 
tizo,  in  the  New  Testament,  signifies  to  wash,  in  some  of 
its  occurrences  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

Q. — Have  you  not  all  considered  baptism,  administered 
by  other  modes  than  immersion,  valid  baptisms  1 

A. — In  the  language  of  Dr.  Chalmers,  we  Avouid  say  : 
"And  we  regard  it  as  a  point  of  indifference,  whether 
the  ordinance  so  named  be  performed  in  this  way  (by 
immersion)  or  by  sprinkling." 


MK.  rCDOBAl'TlST.  67 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Professor  Stuart,  have  you  authorities 
from  the  language,  for  saying  baptizo  signifies  to  wash 
in  a  few  of  its  occurrences  in  the  New  Testament  1 

A. — This  I  gave  to  be  its  meaning,  because  I  thought 
it  most  suitable. 

Q. — Let  us  hear  what  more  you  say  of  the  use  of 
haptizo  in  the  New  Testament  1 

A. — "  For  myself,  I  cheerfully  admit,  that  baptizo,  in 
the  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism, does  in  all  probability,  involve  the  idea,  that  this 
rite  was  usually  performed  by  immersion." — Stuart  on 
Bap.,  p.  154. 

EPISCOPAL  WITNESSES. 

The  Counsel  said,  he  would  now  call  to  the  Avitness 
stand  a  few  English  Episcopal  witnesses,  of  undoubted 
character  and  learning. 

Dr.  Hammond  :  "  The  word  here  used,  Baptizesthai, 
(as  it  differs  from  niptesthai,  verse  3,)  signifies  not  only 
the  washing  of  the  whole  body,  (as  when  'tis  said  of 
Eupolis — that  being  taken  and  thrown  into  the  sea, 
ebaptizeto,  he  was  immersed  all  over,  and  so  the  baptism 
of  cups,  &c,  in  the  end  of  this  verse,  is  putting  into 
water  all  over,  rinsing  them,)  but  washing  any  part  as  the 
hands  here,  by  way  of  immersion  in  water,  as  that  is 
opposed  to  affusion  or  pouring  water  on  them." — Annot. 
on  Mark  7:4. 

Bp.  Davenant :  "  In  baptism,  the  burial  of  the  body  of 
sin,  or  of  the  old  Adam,  is  represented,  when  the  person 
to  be  baptized  is  put  down  into  the  water  ;  as  a  resur- 


68  THE    TRIAL   OF 

rection,  when  he  is  brought  out  of  it." — Expos.  Epis.  ad 
Coloss. 

Bp.  Hall:  "Ye  are,  in  baptism,  buried  together  with 
Christ,  in  respect  of  the  mortification  of  your  sins,  repre- 
sented by  lying  under  the  water;  and  in  the  same  bap- 
tism, ye  rise  up  with  him  in  newness  of  life." — Hard 
Texts,  on  Col.  2:   12  Edit.  1633. 

Abp.  Seeker :  "  Burying,  as  it  were,  the  person  bap- 
tized in  the  water,  and  raising  him  out  of  it  again,  with- 
out question  was  anciently  the  more  usual  method." — 
Lectu.  on  the  Catec.  Sect.  xxxv. 

Bp.  Taylor:  "The  custom  of  the  ancient  churches 
was  not  sprinkling,  but  immersion ;  in  pursuance  of  the 
sense  of  the  word  (baptize)  in  the  commandment,  and 
the  example  of  our  blessed  Saviour." — Ductor  Dubitan- 
Hum,  B.  Ill,  Chap.  IV. 

Mr.  Bingham  :  "  The  ancients  thought  that  immersion 
or  burying  under  water,  did  more  lively  represent  the 
death,  and  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ;  as  well  as 
our  own  death  unto  sin,  and  rising  again  unto  righteous- 
ness ;  and  the  divesting  or  unclothing  of  the  persons  to 
be  baptized,  did  also  represent  the  putting  off  the  body 
of  sin,  in  order  to  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  created 
in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.  Persons  thus  divested, 
were  usually  baptized  by  immersion,  or  dipping  of  their 
whole  bodies  under  water.  There  are  a  great  many 
passages  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  which  plainly  refer 
to  this  custom  ;  as  this  was  the  original  apostolic  prac- 
tice, so  it  continued  to  be  the  universal  practice  of  the 
church  many  ages,  upon  the  same  symbolic  reasons  asjt 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  C9 

was  first  used  by  the  Apostles.  It  appears  from  Epipha- 
.nius  and  others,  that  almost  all  heretics,  who  retained 
any  baptism,  retained  immersion  also.  The  only  heretics 
against  whom  this  charge  (of  not  baptizing  by  a  total 
immersion)  is  brought,  were  Eunomians,  a  branch  of 
the  Arians." — Origin.  Ecles.  B.  XI,  Chap.  XI. 

Dr.  Whitby  :  "  It  being  so  expressly  declared  here, 
(Rom.  6  :  4,  and  Col.  2 :  12,)  that  we  are  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water ;  and  the 
argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity  to  his  death,  by 
dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence;  and  this  immersion 
being  religiously  observed  by  all  Christians  for  thirteen 
centuries,'1''  fye. — Note,  on  Horn.  6  :  4. 

Dr.  Cave :  "  The  party  to  be  baptized  was  wholly 
immerged,  or  put  under  water,  which  was  the  almost 
constant  and  universal  custom  of  those  times ;  whereby 
they  did  more  notably  and  significantly  express  the 
three  great  ends  and  effects  of  baptism." — Primitive 
Christianity,  Part  I,  Chap.  X. 

Dr.  Barrow:  "  The  action  is  baptizing,  or  immersing 
in  water.  The  object  thereof,  those  persons  of  any 
nation,  whom  his  ministers  can  by  their  instruction  and 
persuasion  render  disciples ;  that  is  such  as  do  sincerely 
believe  the  truth  of  his  doctrine,  and  seriously  resolve  to 
obey  his  commandments.  The  mersion  also  in  water, 
and  the  emersion  thence,  doth  figure  our  death,  (to 
worldly  defilements,)  and  receiving  (receiving  to)  a  new 
life."—  Works,  V.  I,  p.  518.  Edi.  1722. 

Bp.  Hoadly :  "  This  latter  expression  (buried  with 
Christ  and  rising  with  him)  made  use  of  by  St.  Paul, 


70  THE    TRIAL   Of 

with  relation  to  baptism,  is  taken  from  the  custom  of 
immersion  in  the  first  days]  and  from  the  particular 
manner  of  baptizing  proselytes :  by  which  they  were 
first  covered  with  water,  and  in  a  state,  as  it  were,  of 
death  and  inactivity ;  and  then  arose  out  of  it  into  a 
sort  of  a  new  state  of  life  and  action.  And  if  baptism 
had  been  then  performed,  as  it  is  now  amongst  us^  we 
should  never  have  so  much  as  heard  of  this  form  of  ex- 
pression, of  dying  and  rising  again  in  this  rite." — Works, 
vol.  III.  p.  890. 

Dr.  Clark:  "In  primitive  times,  the  manner  of  baptiz- 
ing was  by  immersion,  or  dipping  the  whole  body  into 
water.  And  this  manner  of  doing  it,  was  a  very  signifi- 
cant emblem  of  the  dying  and  rising  again  referred  to 
by  St.  Paul."    Rom.  6  :  4. — Expos,  of  Church  Catech. 

Dr.  Wall :  "  Their  (the  Primitive  Christians)  general 
and  ordinary  way  was  to  baptize  by  immersion,  or  dip- 
ping the   person." — His.  of  Inf.  Bap.  part  II,  chap.  ii. 

Bp.  Burnet :  "They  (the  primitive  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel) led  them  into  the  water,  and  with  no  other  garments 
but  what  might  cover  nature,  they  at  first  laid  them  down 
in  the  water,  as  a  man  is  laid  in  the  grave,  and  then  they 
said  these  words  :  c  I  baptize  thee,'  &c.  Then  ihey  raised 
them  up  again,  and  clean  garments  were  put  on  them  ; 
from  whence  came  the  phrases,  of  being  baptized  into 
Christ's  death  ;  of  our  being  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death"  &>c. — Expos.  XXXIX  Articles. 

Abp.  Tillotson  :  "  Anciently,  those  who  were  baptized, 
put  off  their  garments,  which  signified  the  putting  off 
the  body  of  sin,  and  were  immersed  and  buried  in  the 


MR.  PED0BAPT1ST.  71 

water,  to  represent  their  death  to  sin  ;  and  then  did  rise 
up  again  out  of  the  water,  to  signify  their  entrance  upon 
a  new  life.  And  to  these  customs  the  apostle  alludes, 
Kom.  6,  Gal.  3:  27."—  Works,  vol.  I,  serm.  VII. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Did  you  not  all  consider  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling and  pouring  a  valid  baptism  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

BOMAN    CATHOLIC    WITNESSES. 

The  counsel  said  he  would  now  call  another  class  of 
witnesses,  viz  :  Roman  Catholics. 

Bossuet,  (Bishop  of  Maux.)  "  To  baptize  signifies 
to  plunge,  as  is  granted  by  all  the  world."  In  Mr.  Sten- 
nett,  against  Mr.  Russen,  p.  174. 

Calmet :  "  Generally,  people  (speaking  of  the  Jews) 
dipped  themselves  entirely  under  the  water  ;  and  this  is 
the  most  simple  and  natural  notion  of  the  word  baptism." 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Treverne,  (Bishop  of  Strasburg.)  u  The 
word  baptizo,  employed  by  the  Evangelists,  strictly  con- 
veys this  signification,  (immersion,)  as  the  learned  are 
agreed,  and,  at  the  head  of  them  Casaubon,  of  all  the 
Calvinists,  the  best  versed  in  the  Greek  language.  Now 
baptism  by  immersion  has  ceased  for  many  ages,  and 
you  (Protestant  clergy)  yourselves,  as  well  as  we,  have 
received  it  by  infusion.  It  would,  therefore,  be  all  over 
with  your  baptism,  unless  you  established  it  by  tradition 
and  the  practice  of  the  church.  This  being  settled,  I 
ask  you  from  whom  you  have  baptism,  (by  sprinkling.) 
Is  it  not  from  the  church  of  Rome  %     Do  you  not  con- 


72  THE   TRIAL   OF 

sider  her  as  heretical,  and  even  idolatrous  1  You  cannot, 
then,  according  to  the  terms  of  Scripture,  prove  the 
validity  of  your  baptism,  (by  sprinkling,)  and,  to  pro- 
duce a  plea  for  it,  you  are  obliged  to  seek  it  with  Pope 
Stephen  and  the  councils  of  Aries  and  Nice,  and  in 
Apostolic  tradition." — La  Discussion  Amicale,  1847. 

F.  Brenner :  "  Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism, 
generally  and  ordinarily,  performed  by  the  immersion  of 
man  under  water;  and  only  in  extraordinary  cases  was 
sprinkling  or  affusion  permitted.  These  latter  methods 
of  baptism  were  called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited." 
Stuart  on  Baptism,  p.  152. 

Petavius,  the  celebrated  Jesuit,  speaking  of  the  power 
of  the  church  to  alter,  or  impose,  says:  "And  indeed 
immersion  is  properly  baptismos,  though  at  present  we 
content  ourselves  with  pouring  water  on  the  head." — 
Carson,  p.  245. 

"  Simon  the  Jesuit,  on  Matt,  3:  11,  in  his  translation 
from  the  Vulgate,  observes :  "  To  baptize  literally  signi- 
fies to  dip,  and  to  this  day,  throughout  the  east,  baptism 
is  performed  no  other  way,  according  to  the  ancient 
practice  of  the  Christians." — Cam.  and  M^Call  Debate, 
p.   167. 

Q.  C.  Pri — You  all  hold  baptism  by  sprinkling  to  be 
valid,  do  you  not  1 

A.— Yes  sir,  the  church  so  teaches  us. 

TESTIBIONY   OF   ARMENIAN   PROFESSORS. 

The  counsel  for  the  Commonwealth  said,  we  will  now 
offer  several  of  the  Professors  of  the  Armenian  College  at 


M&,   rEDOBAPTI?T.  73 

Amsterdam,  a  Pedobaptist  school.  Limborch  was  called 
and  qualified. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Will  you  please  to  give  us  the  meaning  of 
baptizo,  as  employed  with  reference  to  the  Christian  rite 
of  baptism  1 

A. — "  Baptism  is  that  rite,  or  ceremony,  of  the  New 
Covenant,  whereby  the  faithful,  by  immersion  into  wa- 
ter, as  by  a  sacred  pledge,  are  assured  of  the  favor  of 
God,  remission  of  sins,  and  eternal  life ;  and  by  which 
they  engage  themselves  to  an  amendment  of  life,  and  an 
obedience  to  the  divine  commands." — Compl.  Syst.  Div. 
B.  V. 

G.  J.  Vossius :  Baptizein,  to  baptize,  signifies  to 
plunge. — It  certainly,  therefore,  signifies  more  than  epi- 
polazein,  which  is,  to  swim  lightly  on  the  top  ;  and  less 
than  dunein,  which  is,  to  sink  to  the  bottom,  so  as  to  be 
destroyed.'''' — Disputat.  de  Bap.  Disp. 

Le  Clerc :  "  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
As  I  plunge  you  in  water,  he  shall  plunge  you,  so  to 
speak,  in  the  Holy  Spirit. — Remar.  Sur.  JVeiv  Test.,  a 
Matt.  3. 

Curcellus:  "Baptism  was  performed  by  plunging  the 
whole  body  into  water,  and  not  by  sprinkling  a  few 
drops,  as  is  now  the  practice.  For  John  was  baptizing 
in  Enon,  near  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  ;  and 
they  came  and  were  baptized,  John  3  :  23.  Nor  did  the 
disciples  that  were  sent  out  by  Christ,  administer  bap- 
tism afterwards  in  any  other  way  ;  and  this  is  more 
agreeable  to  the  signification  of  the  ordinance,  Rom.  6 : 
4.     1  am  therefore  of  opinion,  that  we  should  endeavor 


74  THE    TRIAL    OT 

to  restore  and  introduce  this  primitive  rite  of  immersing', 
if  it  may  be  done  without  offence  to  the  weak;  other- 
wise it  seems  better  to  tolerate  this  abuse,  than  to  raise 
a  disturbance  in  the  church  about  it.  They  are  now 
ridiculed  who  desire  to  be  baptized,  not  by  sprinkling, 
but  as  it  was  performed  by  the  ancient  church,  by  an 
immersion  of  the  whole  body  into  water." — Relig.  Christ. 
Insti.  L. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Did  you  not  consider  baptism,  by  sprink- 
ling, &c,  also  valid  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 

The  counsel,  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  said  he 
would  offer  another  class  of  witnesses. 

ENCYCLOPEDIAS,  ETC. 

Magdeburg  Centuriators  :  '<  The  word  baptizo,  to  bap« 
tize,  which  signifies  immersion  into  water,  proves  that 
the  administrators  of  baptism  immersed,  or  washed,  the 
persons  baptized,  in  water."  "  The  Son  of  God  was 
dipped  in  the  water  of  Jordan,  by  the  hand  of  John  the 
Baptist. — Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  in  a  river,  Acts  8  : 
38."— CW.  I.    L.  U.    C.  6,   p.  3S2. 

Chambers  :  M  In  the  primitive  times  this  ceremony 
was  performed  by  immersion  ;  as  it  is  to  this  day  in  the 
Oriental  churches,  according  to  the  original  signification 
of  the  word." — Cyclopedia,  Article,  Baptism.     Ed.  7th. 

Edinburgh  Ency. — "  In  the  time  of  the  Apostles  the 
form  of  baptism  was  very  simple.  The  person  to  be  bap- 
tized was  dipped  in  a  river  or  vessel,  with  the  words 
which  Christ  had  ordaine<l,  and  to  express  more  fully  his 


XlR.    PED0BAPTI3T.  75 

change  of  character,  generally  assumed  a  new  name. 
The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  was  omitted  only  in 
the  cases  of  the  sick,  who  could  not  leave  their  beds. 
In  this  case  sprinkling  was  substituted,  which  was  called 
clinic  baptism.  The  Greek  church,  as  well  as  the  schis- 
matics in  the  east,  retained  the  custom  of  immersing  the 
whole  body  5  but  the  Western  church  adopted,  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling, 
which  has  been  continued  by  the  Protestants,  Baptists 
only  excepted." — Debate  of  C.  and  R.y  p.  183. 

Monthly  Review  of  England :  "  We  acknowledge  there 
are  many  authorities  to  support  it  (immersion)  among 
the  ancients.  The  word  baptizo  doth  certainly  signify 
immersion,  absolute  and  total  immersion,  in  Josephus 
and  other  Greek  writers." — Ibid,  p.  174;. 

FRIENDS    OR    QUAKERS. 

The  Counsel  said  he  would  call  another  class  of  wit- 
nesses in  addition  to  those  already  examined,  to  clearly 
show  that  the  word  in  the  Constitution  is  understood  by 
nearly  all  classes  of  men,  to  signify  to  immerse  ;  and 
has  so  been  understood,  from  the  time  of  its  adoption 
by  the  author  of  our  government,  down  to  the  present 
hour.  The  class  of  witnesses  (he  said)  we  shall  now 
call  upon  the  stand,  are  the  Friends  or  Quakers,  from 
whom  we  may  expect  an  independent  testimony. 

Robert  Barclay  was  called  and  qualified. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Will  you  please  give  us  the  meaning  of 
baptizo,  as  found  in  the  Christian  ordinance  of  baptism  % 

A. — Baptizo  signifies  immergo,  that  is,  to  plunge  and  dip 


76  THE    TRIAL    OF 

in  ;  and  that  was  the  proper  use  of  water  haptism  among 
the  Jews,  and  also  by  John  and  the  primitive  Christians, 
who  used  it.  Whereas,  our  adversaries,  for  the  most 
part,  only  sprinkle  a  little  water  upon  the  forehead, 
which  doth  not  at  all  answer  to  the  word  baptism.  So 
that  if  our  adversaries  will  stick  to  the  word,  they  must 
alter  their  method  of  sprinkling." — Apology,  Propos. 
12,  10. 

John  Gratton  :  "John  did  baptize  into  water,  and  it 
was  a  baptism,  a  real  dipping  or  plunging  into  water,  and 
so  a  real  baptism  was  John's." — Life  J.  Gratton,  p.  231. 

William  Dell :  Speaking  of  baptism,  he  calls  it,  "  the 
plunging  of  a  man  in  cold  water." — Sel.  Works,  p.  389. 

Thomas  Ellwood :  ".  They  (the  Apostles  af  the  feast 
of  Pentecost)  were  now  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
indeed  ;  and  that  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the 
word  baptizo,  which  signifies  dip,  plunge  or  put  under." 
Sacred  Hist,  of  the  JV*.  T.,  part  II,  p.  307. 

Samuel  Forthergill :  "  By  which  (baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit)  I  understand  such  a  thorough  immersion 
into  his  holy  nature,  as  to  know  him,  the  only  begotton 
Son  of  God,  to  conform  the  soul  to  his  own  image." — 
Rem.  on  Add.  Qua.,  p.  270. 

Joseph  Phipps  :  "  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
effected  by  spiritual  immersion.  The  practice  of  sprink- 
ling infants,  under  the  name  of  baptism,  hath  neither 
precept  nor  precedent  in  the  New  Testament." — Dissert, 
on  Bap  ,  p.  25,  30. 

William  Penn  :  "  I  cannot  see  why  the  Bishop  (of 
Cork,  in  answer  to  whom  he  wrote)  should  assume  the 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  77 

power  of  unchristianizing  us,  for  not  practising  of  that 
which  he  himself  practises  so  unscripturally,  and  that 
according  to  the  sentiments  of  a  considerable  part  of 
Christendom  ;  having  not  one  text  of  Scripture  to  prove 
that  sprinkling  in  the  face  was  water  baptism — in  the 
first  times.  Then  it  was  in  the  river  Jordan  ;  now  in 
the  basin." — Defence  of  Gospel  Truths,  p.  82,  83. 

George  Whitehead  :  "  Sprinkling  infants  1  deny  to  be 
baptism,  either  in  a  proper  or  scripture  sense.  For 
sprinkling  is  rhantism,  and  not  baptism  ;  coming  of  ran- 
tizo,  i.  e.  aspergo,  to  sprinkle,  or  to  be  sprinkled,  Heb.  9  : 
13,  19,  compared  with  Heb.  10  :  22  ;  rantismos,  a  be- 
sprinkling ;  and  Chap.  12:  24,  and  1  Pet.  1:  2.  But 
baptizo,  is  to  baptize,  to  plunge  under  water,  to  over- 
whelm. Wherefore,  I  would  not  have  these  men  offended 
at  the  word  rhantism,  it  being  as  much  English  as  the 
word  baptism.  And  also^baptismous  is  translated  wash- 
ing ;  i.  e.  of  cups,  pots,  bVazen  vessels  and  tables,  Mark 
7:  4.  Now  if  washing  here  should  be  taken  in  the  com- 
mon sense,  cleanly  people  use  not  to  do  it  only  by  sprink- 
ling some  drops  of  water  upon  them,  but  by  washing 
them  clean  ;  so  that  rhantism  can  be  neither  baptism  nor 
washing,  in  a  true  or  proper  sense."  Truth  Prevalent, 
Chap.  9,  p.  116. 

Thomas  Lawson  :  "  Such  as  rhantize,  or  sprinkle  in- 
fants, have  no  command  from  Christ,  nor  example  among 
the  Apostles,  nor  first  primitive  Christians,  for  so  doing. 
The  ceremony  of  John's  ministration,  according  to  di- 
vine institution,  was  by  dipping,  plunging  or  overwhelm- 
ing their  bodies  in  water3  as  Scapula  and  Stephen?,  Hvn 

4 


78  THE    TRIAL    OF 

great  masters  in  the  Greek  tongue,  testify  ;  as  also  Gro- 
tius,  Pasor,  Vossius,  Minceus,  Leigh,  Casaubon,  Bucer, 
Bullinger,  Zanchy,  Spanhemius,  Rogers,  Talor,  Ham- 
mond, Calvin,  Piscator,  Aquinas,  Scotus.  As  for  sprink- 
ling, the  Greeks  call  it  rhantismos,  which  I  render  rhan- 
tism, for  it  is  as  proper  to  call  sprinkling  rhantism  as 
dipping  baptism.  This  linguists  cannot  be  ignorant  of, 
that  dipping  and  sprinkling  are  expressed  by  several 
words,  both  in  Latin  and  Greek,  and  Hebrew.  'Tis  very 
evident,  if  sprinkling  had  been  of  divine  institution,  the 
Greeks  had  their  rhantismos;  but  as  dipping  was  the 
institution,  they  used  baptismos ;  so  maintained  the 
purity  and  propriety  of  the  language.  To  sprinkle  young 
or  old,  and  call  it  baptism,  is  very  incongruous;  yea,  as 
improper  as  to  call  a  horse  a  cow ;  for  baptism  signifies 
dipping.  However,  rhantism  hath  entered  into  and 
among  the  professors  of  Christianity  ;  and,  to  gain  the 
more  acceptance,  'tis  called  baptism.'''1 — Bqpti.,]).  118,  119. 

Anthony  Purver  :  "  Baptized  is  but  a  Greek  word 
used  in  English,  and  signifying  plunged."  Note,  on  1 
Cor.  15:  29. — "  Such  is  the  harmonious  and  united  tes- 
timony of  those  impartial  Friends :  nor  do  I  suppose 
that  any  sensible  portion  of  the  same  denomination  would 
for  a  moment  scruple  to  subscribe  the  preceding  declara- 
tions."— Booth,  p.  66-9. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — You  have  no  faith  in  any  outward  bap- 
tism. 

A. — We  believe  in  a  spiritual  baptism. 

The  Counsel  arose,  and  said  he  would  defer  the  argu- 
ment founded  on  the  use  of  baptizo  in  the  Constitution, 


MR.    PEBOBAPTIST.  79 

and  the  circumstances  connected  with  its  action  in  bap. 
tism,  until  his  address  to  the  Court  and  jury,  at  which 
time  he  would  unfold  its  character.  He  would,  also, 
postpone  the  argument  on  the  design  of  baptism  until 
the  same  time. 

MEANING  OF    BAPTIZO    GATHERED  FROM  THE    HISTORY  OF    THE 
CHURCH. 

It  will  then  be  our  duty,  at  this  time,  to  proceed  to 
call  witnesses  to  prove  the  Practice  of  the  Church  under 
the  law  of  Christian  baptism.  We  will,  in  the  first 
place,  give  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers.  Our 
selection  of  their  testimonies  shall  be  from  Pedobaptsts. 
In  the  second  place,  we  shall  give  the  testimonies  of 
Pedobaptists  in  proof  of  the  Church's  understanding  of 
baptizo  signifying  the  action  of  immersing  in  the  ordi- 
nance. Our  first  authorities  shall  be  selected  from  Pro- 
fessor Stuart's  work  on  baptism. 

"  In  the  Pastor  of  Hernias,  (written  in  the  first  century) 
however,  occurs  one  passage,  (Coteler.  Pastr.  Apostol. 
I,  p.  119,  sq.,)  which  runs  as  follows  :  '  But  this  seal  (of 
the  sons  of  God)  is  water,  into  which  men  descend  who 
are  bound  to  death,  but  those  ascend  who  are  destined 
to  life.  To  them  that  seal  is  disclosed,  and  they  make 
use  of  it  that  they  may  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.' 

"Justin  Martyr,  (lived  in  the  second  century,)  in  his 
Apology,  (Opp.  Part  1,  p.  210,  ed.  Oberthur,)  a  passage 
occurs  which  deserves  our  attention.  Speaking  of  con- 
verts to  Christianity,  or  those  who  become  believers,  he 
says  :     '  They  are  led  out  by  us  to  the  place  where  there 


SO  THE    TRIAL   OF 

is  water,  *  *  *  and  in  the  name  of  the  Father  of  the 
universe,  the  Lord  God,  and  of  the  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  wash  themselves  with 
water,  *  *  *  leading  him  who  is  to  be  washed  to  the 
bath  or  washing  place.'  I  am  pursuaded  that  this  pas- 
sage, as  a  whole,  most  naturally  refers  to  immersion  ;  for 
why,  on  any  other  ground,  should  the  convert,  who  is  to 
be  initiated  go  out  to  the  place  where  there  is  water.  There 
could  be  no  need  of  this  if  sprinkling  or  partial  affusion 
only,  was  customary  in  the  time  of  Justin. 

"  Tertullian,  who  died  A.  D.,  220,  is  the  most  ample 
Avitness  of  all  the  early  writers.  In  his  works  is  an 
essay  in  defence  of  Christian  baptism,  which  had  been 
assailed  by  some  of  the  heretics  of  his  time.  Passing 
by  the  multitude  of  expressions  which  speak  of  the  im- 
portance of  being  cleansed  by  water,  bom  in  the  water, 
etc.,  I  quote  only  such  as  are  directly  to  the  point.  In 
section  2  he  speaks  of  a  baptized  person,  as  lin  aquam 
demissus,  let  down  into  the  water,  i.  e.,  immersed,  and 
inter  pauca  verba  tinctus,  i.  e.,  dipped  between  the  utte- 
rance of  a  few  words.' 

"In  section  4  is  a  passage  which  seems  to  convey  a  still 
more  definite  sense.  He  is  speaking  of  the  original 
waters  at  the  time  of  creation  having  been  made  a  sanc- 
tified element  by  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon 
them,  from  which  he  goes  on  to  argue  the  sanctifying 
influence  of  baptismal  water.  But  some  will  object,  he 
says,  that  'we  are  not  dipped  (tinguimur)  in  those  wa- 
ters which  Averc  at  the  beginning,'  His  reply  is,  that  all 
water  is   h  species  of  th;U  genus,  and  that   the  species 


i\in.  PKboiurrisT.  81 

must  have  the  same  quality  with  the  genus.  He  then 
proceeds:  'There  is,  then,  no  difference  whether  any- 
one is  washed  in  a  pool,  river,  fountain,  lake,  or  chan- 
nel, alveus,  (canal)  nor  is  there  any  difference  of  conse- 
quence between  those  whom  John  immersed  (tinxit)  in 
the  Jordan,  or  Peter  in  the  Tiber.' 

"  In  section  6  he  says :  '  Not  that  we  obtain  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  aquis  (i.  e.,  in  the  baptismal  water,)  but  being 
cleansed  in  the  Water,  (in  aqua  emundati,)  we  are 
prepared  for  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Section  7,  '  Afterwards, 
going  out  from  the  ablution  or  bath,  (lavacro,)  we  are 
anointed,'  etc. 

"  In  his  book  against  Praxeas,  section  26,  sub  fine,  he 
says:  'Not  once,  but  thrice,  according  to  the  several 
names  (Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,)  are  we  baptized 
(tinguimur)  into  the  several  persons.'  The  reader  is  de- 
sired to  note  here,  and  in  other  passages  which  will  be 
cited,  that  the  practice  of  trine  immersion,  i.  e.,  of  plung- 
ing three  times  into  water,  in  correspondence  with  the 
names  of  the  Godhead  as  they  occur  in  the  formula  of 
baptism,  was  usual  at  so  early  a  period  as  the  time  of 
Tertullian  ;  how  much  earlier  we  have  no  certain  testi- 
mony, at  least  none  I  am  acquainted  with.  Tertullian 
himself,  however,  seems  to  have  regarded  this  trine  im- 
mersion as  something  superadded  to  the  precepts  of  the 
gospel ;  for  thus  he  speaks  in  his  book  De  Corona  Militis, 
section  3  :  e  Thence  we  are  thrice  immersed,  (ter  mergi- 
tamur,)  answering,  i.  e.,  fulfilling  something  more  (aui- 
plius  aliquid  respondentes)  than  the  Lord  has  decreed  in 
the  gospel,' 

D 


82  THE    TRIAL   0? 

"  Chrysostom,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  lived  fa 
the  fourth  century,  says  in  Homil.  40,  in  1  Cor.  i :  'To 
be  baptized,  and  to  submerge  (kataduesthai,)  then  to 
emerge,  (ananeuein,)  is  a  symbol  of  descent  to  the  grave? 
and  of  ascent  from  it.' 

"  Ambrose,  who  was  Bishop  of  Milan  and  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  says  in  Lib.  II,  ch.  7,  de  Sacramentis : 
4  You  were  asked,  Dost  thou  believe  in  God  Almighty  % 
Thou  saidst,  I  believe  j  and  thus  thou  wast  immerged. 
(mersisti,)  that  is,  thou  wast  buried.' 

"Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  in  Africa,  says  in  Homil. 
IV :  '  After  you  professed  your  belief,  three  times  did 
we  submerge  (demersimus)  your  heads  in  the  sacred 
fountain.' 

"Dionysius  Areop.  de  Eccles.  Hierarch.,  ch.  2:  '  Pro- 
perly the  total  covering  by  water%  is  taken  from  an  image 
of  death  and  burial  out  of  sight.' 

"  The  Council  of  Toletan  :  '  For  immersion  in  the 
water  is  like  a  descent  to  the  grave ;  and  again,  emer- 
sion from  the  water  (ab  aquis  emersio)  is  a  resurrec- 
tion.' " 

Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  who  lived  in  the  fourth 
century,  says :  "  Candidates  are  first  anointed  with  con- 
secrated oils ;  they  are  then  conducted  to  the  laver,  and 
asked  three  times  if  they  believe  in  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost ;  then  they  are  dipped  three  times  into  the 
water,  and  retire  out  of  it  by  three  distinct  efforts." — 
Lupin's  Ec.  This.,  ch.  4,  5,  ii,  p.  109-113. 

Again,  he  says,  in  Catech.  17 :  "  For  as  he  that  goes 
down  into  the  water  and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded  on  all! 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  83 

sides  with  water,  so  the  Apostles  were  baptized  all  over 
by  the  Spirit.  The  water  surrounds  the  body  exter- 
nally, but  the  Spirit  incomprehensibly  baptizes  the  soul 
within." 

Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nyssa,  who  lived  in  the  fourth 
century,  says :  "  That  the  regeneration  wrought  in  bap- 
tism ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  water,  but  to  a 
Divine  virtue  ;  that  by  dipping  the  person  under  water 
three  times,  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  represented  ;  that  without  baptism  no  man  can  be 
washed  from  sin." — Dupin,  ch.  4,  p.  178. 

Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nazianzen,  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  says :  "  We  are  buried  with  Christ  by 
baptism,  that  we  may  also  rise  again  with  him  ;  we  as- 
cend with  him,  that  we  may  also  be  glorified  together." 
Stennefs  Ans.,  p.  144. 

Basil,  Bishop  of  Caesarea)  de  Spirtu.,  ch.  15  :  "By  the 

three  immersions  (- ,)  and  by  the  like  number  of 

invocations,  the  great  mystery  of  baptism  is  completed." 
Stuart. 

Damascenus,  Orthodox.  Fides  IV.  10 :  "  Baptism  is  a 
type  of  the  death  of  Christ;  for  by  three  immersions 
(kataduseoon)  baptism  signifies,"  etc. — Stuart. 

The  Apostolical  Constitution  (probably  written  in  the 
fourth  century,)  Lib.  Ill,  c.  17:  "Immersion  (katadu- 
sis,)  denotes  dying  with  him  (Christ ;)  emersion  (anadu- 
sis,)  a  resurrection  with  Christ." — Ibid. 

Photius  (apud  Oecumenium)  on  Rom.  6  :  "  The  three 
immersions  and  emersions  of  baptism,  signify  death  and 
resurrection." — Ibid. 


84  THE    TRIAL    OF 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  give  more  testimony  from 
the  Fathers,  to  ascertain  their  sentiments  on  the  action 
of  baptism.  Let  us  close  this  part  of  our  investigation 
by  the  language  of  Professor  Stuart :  "  But  enough. 
'It  is,'  says  Augusti  (Denkw.  Vli,  p.  216)  'a  thing 
made  out,'  viz  :  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion.  So, 
indeed,  all  the  writers  who  have  thoroughly  investigated 
this  subject,  conclude.  1  know  of  no  usage  of  ancient 
times,  which  seems  to  be  \nore  clearly  made  out.  I  can- 
not see  how  it  is  possible,  for  any  candid  man  who  ex- 
amines the  subject,  to  deny  this." — Sttiart,  p.  149. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Prof.  Stuart,  please  tell  us,  whether  excep- 
tions to  the  practice  of  immersion  were  not  allowed  in 
the  ancient  church  1 

A. — "That  there  were  cases  of  exceptions  allowed, 
now  and  then,  is  no  doubt  true.  Persons  in  extreme 
sickness,  or  danger,  were  allowed  baptism  by  affu- 
sion, etc.  Cyprian  pleads  strongly  and  conclusively  for 
this  in  his  epistle  to  Magnus,  Ep.  76.  The  Council  of 
Neo-Ca3sarea,  Euseb.  Lib.  VI,  c.  43 ;  and  so  the  Council 
of  Laodicea,  Can.  47,  sanction  such  baptisms.  The  Acta 
Laurentii,  apud  Surium  Tom.  IV,  mention  a  JRoman 
soldier  who  was  baptized  by  Laurence  with  a  pitcher  of 
water  ;  and  the  same  person  also  baptized  Lucillus,  by 
pouring  water  on  his  head.  But  all  such  cases  were 
manifestly  regarded  as  exceptions  to  the  common  usage 
of  the  church." — Stuart,  p.  149. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Professor  Stuart,  you  cannot  trace  up  this 
practice  of  exceptional  baptism,  to  an  earlier  date  than 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  1 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST,  85 

A. — At  that  time  we  have  it  recognized  and  sanctioned 
by  Cyprian  of  Carthage. 

We  shall  proceed,  said  the  Counsel,  to  confirm  the 
view  we  have  taken  of  the  History  of  the  Church,  by  the 
testimonies  of  Pedobaptist  witnesses. 

1.    THE    PRACTICE    OF    THE    EASTERN    CHURCH. 

"  The  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  the  Oriental 
church  has  always  continued  to  preserve,  even  down  to 
the  present  time.  The  members  of  this  church  are  ac- 
customed to  call  the  members  of  the  western  churches 
sprinkled  Christians,  by  way  of  ridicule  and  contempt. 
They  maintain  that  baptizo  can  mean  nothing  but  im- 
merge ;  and  that  baptism  by  sprinkling  is  as  great  a 
solecism  as  immersion  by  aspersion  ;  and  they  claim  to 
themselves  the  honor  of  having  preserved  the  ancient 
sacred  rite  of  the  church,  free  from  change  and  from  cor^ 
ruption,  which  would  destroy  its  significancy." — Stuart, 
p.  151-2. 

Dr.  Wall :  "  All  the  Christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa, 
and  about  one-third  part  of  Europe,  are  of  the  last  sort, 
(i.  e.  practice  immersion  ;)  in  which  third  part  of  Europe, 
are  comprehended  the  Christians  of  GraBcia,  Thracia, 
Servia,  Bulgaria,  Rascia,  Walachia,  Moldavia,  Russia, 
Nigra,  and  so  on ;  and  even  the  Muscovites,  who,  if  cold- 
ness of  the  country  will  excuse,  might  plead  for  a  dis- 
pensation with  the  most  reason  of  any." — Hist,  of  Inf. 
Bupt.  477. 


SO  THE    TRIAL    OF 

2.   THE    PRACTICE   OF    THE  GENERAL    CHURCH,    AS    GIVEN   BY 
PEDOBAPTISTS. 

1.  German  Authorities. 

Mosheim :  "  The  exhortations  of  this  respectable  mes- 
senger, (John  the  Baptist,)  were  not  without  effect;  and 
those  who,  moved  by  his  solemn  admonitions,  had  form- 
ed the  resolution  of  correcting  their  evil  dispositions, 
and  amending  their  lives,  were  initiated  into  the  Kingdom 
of  the  Redeemer  by  the  ceremony  of  immersion,  or  bap- 
tism."— Church  History,  p.  2(5.  "  The  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism was  administered  in  this  century,  (the  first)  with- 
out the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed  and  pre- 
pared for  that  purpose,  and  was  performed  by  an  immer- 
sion of  the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font." — Ibid, 
p.  46. 

Again,  he  says  of  the  second  century : — "  The  persons 
that  were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the 
creed,  confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and  particu- 
larly the  devil  and  his  pompous  allurements,  were  im- 
mersed under  water,  and  received  into  Christ's  Kingdom 
by  a  solemn  invocation  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 
Ibid,  p.  69. 

Neander :  tl  John's  followers  were  entirely  immersed  in 
water — the  Messiah  would  immerse  the  souls  of  believers 
in  the  Holy  Ghost." — Life  of  Christ,  p.  50. 

In  his  Church  History  he  says,  page  310: — "In  re- 
spect to  the  form  of  baptism  it  was  in  conformity  with 
the  original  institution,  and  the  original  symbol  perform- 


MR.   PEDOUAFTlST.  St 

ed  by  immersion  as  a  sign  of  an  entire  baptism  into  the 
Holy  Ghost,  being  entirely  penetrated  by  the  same." 

Bretschneider,  Theology,  vol.  I,  p.  684 :  "  The  Apos- 
tolic Church  baptized  only  by  immersion." 

Guericke,  Ch.  Histo.,  p.  100  :  «  Baptism  was  origi- 
nally administered  by  immersion." 

Hahn,  Theology,  p.  556 :  "  According  to  Apostolical 
instruction  and  example,  baptism  was  performed  by  im- 
mersing the  whole  man." 

Rheinwald,  Archazology,  of  1830,  p.  303,  n.  1 :  "  Im- 
mersion was  the  original  Apostolical  practice." 

2.  Presbyterian  Authorities. 

Calvin:  "And  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the 
practice  of  the  ancient  church." — Inst.,  vol.  3,  p.  343. 

Dr.  Chalmers :  "  Yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent 
style  of  the  administration  in  the  Apostles'  days,  was  by 
an  actual  submerging  of  the  whole  body  under  water." — 
Lect.,  Rom.  6. 

Professor  Stuart :  "  In  what  manner,  then,  did  the 
churches  of  Christ,  from  a  very  early  period,  to  say  the 
least,  understand  the  word  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament  1 
Plainly  they  construed  it  as  meaning  immersion." — > 
Stuart,  p.  153. 

3.  Episcopal  Authorities. 

Dr.  Whitby:  "It  is  expressly  declared  here,  (Rom.  6  i 
4,  and  Colos.  2:  12,)  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water ;  and  the  argument 
to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity  to  his  death,  by  dying  to 


88  THE   TRIAL   or 

sin,  being-  hence  ;  and  this  immersion  being  religiously 
observed  by  all  Christians  for  thirteen  centuries." — Note 
on  Rom.  6  :  4. 

Dr.  Wall :  "  Their  (the  primitive  Christians)  general 
and  ordinary  way  was  to  baptize  by  immersion,  or  dip- 
ping the  person,  whether  it  was  an  infant,  or  grown  man 
or  woman,  into  the  water.  This  is  so  plain  and  clear 
by  an  infinite  number  of  passages,  that  one  cannot  but 
pity  the  weak  endeavors  of  such  Pedobaptists  as  would 
maintain  the  negative  of  it." — Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.,  p.  462. 

Bingham  :  "  There  are  a  great  many  passages  in  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  which  plainly  refer  to  this  custom  ; 
(of  immersion)  as  this  was  the  original  Apostolic  prac- 
tice, so  it  continued  to  be  the  universal  practice  of  the 
church  for  many  ages." — Origin.  Eccles. 

Dr.  Cave  :  "  The  party  to  be  baptized  was  wholly  im- 
merged,  or  put  under  water,  which  was  the  almost  con- 
stant and  universal  custom  of  those  times." — Prim. 
Christ. 

4.  Roman  Catholic  Authorities. 

Bossuet :  "I  find  we  read  not  in  the  Scriptures  that 
baptism  (by  immersion)  was  otherwise  administered  ; 
and  we  are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by  the  acts  of  Coun- 
cils, and  by  the  ancient  Rituals,  that  for  thirteen  hundred 
years  baptism  was  thus  administered  throughout  the  whole 
church,  as  far  as  possible." — Mr.  Stennett,  against  Rus- 
sen,  p.  175,  176. 

In  an  other  place  he  (Bossuct)  says :  "It  is  a  fact 
most  firmly  believed  by  the  Reformed,  (though  some  of 


Mli.    PEDOBAl'TIST.  S9 

them  at  this  time  wrangle  about  it,)  that  baptism  was  in- 
stituted to  be  administered  by  plunging  the  body  en- 
tirely ;  that  Jesus  Christ  received  it  in  this  manner ; 
that  it  was  thus  performed  by  his  Apostles ;  that  the 
Scriptures  are  acquainted  with  no  other  baptism ;  that 
antiquity  understood  and  practised  it  in  this  manner ; 
and  that  to  baptize,  is  to  plunge ; — these  facts,  I  say,  are 
unanimously  acknowledged  by  all  the  Reformed  teachers  ; 
by  the  Reformers  themselves  ;  by  those  who  best  under- 
stood the  Greek  language,  and  the  ancient  customs  of 
both  Jews  and  Christians  ;  by  Luther,  by  Melanchton,  by 
Calvin,  by  Casaubon,  by  Crotius,  with  all  the  rest,  and 
since  their  time  by  Jurieu,  the  most  ready  to  contradict 
of  all  their  ministers.  Luther  has  even  remarked,  that 
this  sacrament  is  called  tauf,  in  German,  on  account  of 
the  depth  ;  because  they  plunged  deeply  in  the  water, 
those  whom  they  baptized.  If  then  there  be  in  the  world 
a  fact  absolutely  certain,  it  is  this,  (immersion  in  bap- 
tism.)— This,  des  Eg.  Prot.,  II,  p.  469,  470. 

F.  Brenner :  "  Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism 
generally  and  ordinarily  performed  by  the  immersion  of 
a  man  under  water  ;  and  only  in  extraordinary  cases  was 
sprinkling  or  affusion  permitted.  These  latter  methods 
of  baptism  were  called  in  question,  and  even  prohibit- 
ed."— Stuart  on  Bap.,  p.  152. 

5.  Authorities  not  Classified. 

Mr.  T.  Wilson :  "  Baptism  was  performed  in  the  primi- 
tive times  by  immersion," — Jlrclwolog,  Diet.,  Article, 
Baptism. 


90  THE    TRIAL    OF 

Mr.  Stackhouse  :  "  Accordingly,  several  authors  have 
shown,  that  we  read  nowhere  in  Scripture  of  any  one's 
being  baptized,  but  by  immersion  ;  and  from  the  acts  of 
Councils  and  ancient  Rituals  have  proved,  that  this  man- 
ner of  immersion  continued  (as  much  as  possible)  to  be 
used  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after  Christ." — History 
of  the  Bib.,  B.  VIII. 

Venema :  "  It  is  without  controversy  that  baptism  in 
the  primitive  church  was  administered  by  immersion 
into  water,  and  not  by  sprinkling." — Booth,  p.  212. 

Bp.  Nicholson  :  "  The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  an- 
ciently administered  by  plunging  into  the  water,  in  the 
Western  as  well  as  the  Eastern  part  of  the  church ;  and 
that  the  Gothic  word  *###*•  tjie  German 
word  taufen  ;  the  Danish  word  dobe,  and  Belgic  doopen, 
do  as  clearly  make  out  that  practice,  as  the  Greek  word 
baptizo." — Ibid,  219. 

THE  CHANGE  FROM  IMMERSION  IN  BAPTISM.. 

The  Counsel  arose  and  said,  we  are  now  prepared  to 
prove  by  Pedobaptist  witnesses,  our  last  proposition, 
which  charges  the  Prisoner  with  the  crime  of  altering 
Immersion,  in  Baptism,  to  Sprinkling  and  Pouring. 

1.   We  will  show  that  the  Prisoner  taught  the  Church  the 
right  to  make  this  change. 

Richard  Watson  (Methodist)  says:  "Even  if  immer- 
sion had  been  the  original  mode  of  baptizing,  we  should, 
in  the  absence  of  any  command  on  the  subject,  direct  or 
implied,  have  thought  the  church  at  liberty  to  accommo- 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  91 

date  the  manner  of  applying  water  to  the  body,  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  in  which  the  essence  of  the  rite 
consists,  to  different  climates  and  manners." — Theolog. 
Insti.,  p.  445. 

Calvin :  "  But  whether  the  person  who  is  baptized  be 
wholly  immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether 
water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no 
importance;  churches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty  in  this 
respect,  to  act  according  to  the  difference  of  countries." 
Inst.  vol.  3,  p.  343. 

Professor  Stuart :  (t  Calvin,  Instit.  IV,  c.  15,  §19,  says : 
4  It  is  of  no  consequence  at  all  (minimum  refert)  whether 
the  person  baptized  is  totally  immersed,  or  he  is  merely 
sprinkled  by  an  affusion  of  water.  This  should  be  a  matter 
of  choice  to  the  churches  in  different  regions ;  although 
the  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse,  and  the  rite  of  im- 
mersion was  practised  by  the  ancient  church.''  To  this 
opinion  I  do  most  fully  and  heartily  subscribe ;  not  be- 
cause it  is  Calvin's,  nor  because  the  great  majority  of 
Christians  have  adopted  it.  1  have  other,  and  I  trust 
better,  reasons  than  either  of  these." — Stuart,  p.  157. 

Dr.  Bogue,  (Calvinist)  :  "  As  it  is  but  a  ritual  ob- 
servance, and  quantity  of  water  can  be  of  no  efficacy, 
allowance  is  to  be  made  for  difference  of  climates  and 
usages,  as  if  the  mode  by  immersion  be  not  agreeable  to 
cold  climates,  and  decency,  and  alteration  in  mode  is 
suitable," — Bogue's  Theolog.  Led.,  p.  313. 

Dr.  Hill :  «  The  greater  part  of  Christians  have  found 
themselves  at  liberty,  in  a  matter  very  far  from  being 
essential,  to  adopt  that  practice  which  is  most  covenient, 


92  •    THE    TRIAL    Or 

and  most  suited  to  the  habits  of  colder  climates." — Hill's 
Divinity,  p.  659. 

Piscator :  ''Whether  the  Avhole  body  be  dipped,  and 
that  thrice,  or  once ;  or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or 
sprinkled  on  the  party ;  this  ought  to  be  free  to  the 
churches,  according  to  the  difference  of  countries." 
Jiphor.  Doct.  Christ. 

Rich..  Baxter:  "We  grant  that  baptism  then  (in  the 
primitive  times)  was  by  washing  the  whole  body ;  and 
did  not  the  difference  of  our  cold  country,  as  to  that  hot 
one,  teach  us  to  remember,  /  will  have  mercy  and  not 
sacrifice,  it  should  be  so  here." — Paraphrase  on  Matt. 
3:  6. 

Bp.  Burnet:  "The  danger  of  dipping  in  cold  cli- 
mates, may  be  a  very  good  reason  for  changing  the  form 
of  baptism  to  sprinkling." — Exposition  of  XXXIX  Art. 
p.  436. 

2.  That  the  change  did  take  place  from  the  action  of  Bap- 
tism as  commanded  by  Christ,  to  Sprinkling  or  Pouring. 

Turrettinus :  "  Immersion  was  used  in  former  times 
and  in  warm  climates,  as  we  are  taught  by  the  practice 
of  John  the  Baptist,  Matt.  3:6,  16  ;  of  Christ's  Apostles, 
John  iii:  22,  and  vi :  1,  2;  and  of  Philip,  Acts  8:  38. 
But  now,  especially  in  cold  countries,  when  the  church 
began  to  extend  itself  towards  the  north,  plunging  was 
changed  into  sprinkling." — Institut.  hoc.  XIX. 

Mr.  W.  Perkins:  "The  ancient  custom  of  baptizing 
was  to  dip,  and  as  it  were,  to  dive  all  the  bodies  of  the 
bnptizcd  in  the  water,  as  may  nppcar  in  Paul,  Kom.  6, 


MR,    PEDOEAPTIST.  93 

and  the  Councils  of  Laodicea  and  Neocesarea  ;  but  now, 
especially  in  cold  countries,  the  church  useth  only  to 
sprinkle  the  baptized.  We  need  not  much  to  marvel  at 
this  alteration,  seeing  charity  and  necessity  may  dis- 
pense with  ceremonies." — Works,  vol.  I,  p.  74j. 

Dr.  Wetham  :  "  The  word  baptism  signifies  a  wash- 
ing, particularly  when  it  is  done  by  immersion,  or  by 
dipping,  or  plunging  a  thing  under  water,  which  was 
formerly  the  ordinary  way  of  administering  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism.  Not  only  the  Catholic  church,  but 
also  the  pretended  Reformed  churches  have  altered  this 
primitive  custom  in  giving  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
and  now  allow  of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
water  on  the  person  baptized." — Anno.  JV.  T.,  Matt.  3  :  6. 

Von  Coelln  :  "  Immersion  in  water  was  general  until 
the  thirteenth  century  ;  but  among  the  Latins  it  was  dis- 
placed by  sprinkling  ;  but  retained  by  the  Greeks." — 
Hist.  Theol.  Opin.  vol.  1,  p.  203. 

Heckermanus  :  "  Though  the  term  baptism  properly 
signifies  immersion,  and  though  also  in  the  ancient 
church,  through  the  eastern  countries,  when  baptism  was 
administered,  it  was  not  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immer- 
sion j  yet  in  the  colder  parts  of  Christendom,  aspersion 
is  used  instead  of  immersion,  on  account  of  infants; 
because  charity  and  necessity  may  dispense  with  cere- 
monies, and  temper  them  with  gentleness." — System. 
Theolog. 

JBossuet :  "Baptism  by  immersion,  which  is  as  clearly 
established  in  the  Scriptures  as  communion  under  two 
kinds  can  possibly  be ;  has  nevertheless   been    changed 


94-  THE    TRIAL    OF 

into  pouring,  with  as  much  ease  and  as  little  dispute  as 
communion  under  one  kind  has  been  established." — Hist, 
des  Egl.  Proft.  Tom.  II. 

Gurtlerus :  "  The  action  in  the  element  of  water,  is 
immersion ;  which  rite  continued  for  a  long  time  in  the 
Christian  church,  until,  in  a  very  late  age,  it  was  changed 
into  sprinkling." — Institut.  Theolog.  Chap,  xxxiii,  Sect. 
117,  118. 

Chamierus :  "  Immersion  of  the  whole  body  was  used 
from  the  beginning,  which  expresses  the  force  of  the 
word  baptize — whence  John  baptized  in  a  river.  It  was 
afterwards  changed  into  sprinkling." — Panstrat.  Cathol. 

Sir  John  Floyer :  "  The  church  of  Rome  hath  drawn 
short  compendiums  of  both  sacraments.  In  the  Euchar- 
ist, they  use  only  the  wafer,  and  instead  of  immersion 
they  introduced  aspersion.  I  have  now  given  what 
testimony  I  could  find  in  our  English  authors,  to  prove 
the  practice  of  immersion  from  the  time  the  Britons  and 
Saxons  were  baptized,  till  King  James's  days;  when  the 
people  grew  peevish  with  all  ancient  ceremonies,  and 
through  the  love  of  novelty,  and  niceness  of  parents, 
and  pretence  of  modesty,  they  laid  aside  immersion  ; 
which  never  was  abrogated  by  any  Canon,  but  is  still 
recommended  by  the  present  Rubric  of  our  church,  which 
orders  the  child  to  be  dipt  discreetly  and  warily." — 
Hist,  of  Cold  Bathing ,  p.  15,  61. 

Bloomfield :  "  I  agree  with  Koppe  and  Rosenmuller, 
that  there  is  reason  to  regret  it  (immersion)  should  have 
been  abandoned  in  most  Christian  churches." — Critical 
Digest  on  Rom.  VI,  4. 


MR.    FED0BAPT1ST.  95 

H.  Altingius:  "The  baptismal  washing,  in  warm 
countries  and  ancient  times,  was  performed  by  immer- 
sion ;  but  now,  especially  in  cold  countries,  it  is  perform- 
ed by  only  sprinkling.  The  cause  of  the  alteration  is, 
that  immersion,  which  was  used  in  the  warm  eastern 
and  southern  countries,  is  less  convenient  in  the  cold 
westeM  and  northern  climates  ;  where  there  is  danger 
of  health  from  immersion,  especially  of  infants.  And 
therefore,  that  rule  is  here  in  force ;  I  will  have  mercy  and 
not  sacrifice." — Loci  Commun  Pars,  I. 

Dr.  Hill:  "In  one  circumstance  respecting  the  mode 
of  administering  baptism,  the  greater  part  of  Christians 
have  departed  from  the  primitive  practice." — Hill's  Di- 
vinity',  p.  459. 

3.  The  Origin  of  this  Change,  and  its  Progress. 

It  must  be  distinctly  remembered  that  after  the  intro- 
duction of  this  change,  it  was  exclusively  confined  to 
cases  of  extreme  necessity.  The  reason  of  this  is  to  be 
found  in  the  doctrine  held  to  be  sacred,  viz  :  that  bap- 
tism was  for  the  remission  of  sins.  The  third  century 
marks  its  introduction  and  approval  by  Cyprian. 

Dr.  Wall  could  find  no  instance  of  the  kind,  prior  to 
the  case  of  Novatian  ;  which  is  thus  described  in  Euse- 
bius :  "  He  fell  into  a  grievous  distemper,  and  it  being 
supposed  that  he  would  die  immediately,  he  received 
baptism,  being  besprinkled  with  water  on  the  bed  where- 
on he  lay,  if  that  can  be  termed  baptism." — Ecclcs.  Hist., 
13.  VI,  chap.  43. 

Dr.  Wall :    "  In  case  of  sickness,  weakness,  haste, 


96  THE    TRIAL    OF 

want  of  quantity  of  water,  or  such  like  extraordinary 
occasions,  baptism  by  affusion  of  water  on  the  face,  was 
by  the  ancients  counted  sufficient  baptism.  I  shall,  out 
of  many  proofs  of  it,  produce  two  or  three  of  the  most 
ancient :  Anno  Dom.  two  hundred  and  fifty-one,  Nova- 
tian  was,  by  one  party  of  the  clergy  and  people  of  Rome, 
chosen  bishop  of  that  church,  in  a  schismatical  way,  and 
in  opposition  to  Cornelius,  who  had  been  before  chosen 
by  the  major  part,  and  was  already  ordained.  Cornelius 
does,  in  a  letter  to  Fabius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  vindicate 
his  right :  and  shows  that  Novatian  came  not  canonically 
to  his  orders  of  priesthood,  much  less  was  he  capable  of 
being  chosen  bishop ;  for  that  all  the  clergy  and  a  great 
many  of  the  laity,  were  against  his  being  ordained  pres- 
byter, because  it  was  not  lawful  (they  said)  for  any  one 
that  had  been  baptized  (perikuthenta)  in  his  bed  in  time 
of  sickness,  as  he  had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any  office 
of  the  clergy."  "  France  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
country  in  the  world,  where  baptism  by  affusion  was 
used  ordinarily  to  persons  in  health,  and  in  the  public 
way  of  administering  it.  It  being  allowed  to  weak 
children  (in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth)  to  be  bap- 
tized by  aspersion,  many  fond  ladies  and  gentlewomen 
first,  and  then  by  degrees  the  common  people,  would  ob- 
tain the  favor  of  the  priest  to  have  their  children  pass 
for  weak  children,  too  tender  to  endure  dipping  in  the 
water.  Especially,  as  Mr.  Walker  observes,  if  some  in- 
stances really  were,  or  were  but  fancied  or  framed,  of 
some  child's  taking  hurt  by  it.  Calvin  had  not  only 
given  his  dictate  in  his  institution,  that  the  difference  is 


MR.    PF.BOBAPTIST.  97 

of  no  moment,  whether  he  that  is  baptized  be  dipt  all 
over,  and  if  so,  whether  thrice  or  once ;  or  whether  he  be 
only  wetted  by  the  water- poured  on  him ;  but  he  had 
drawn  up  for  the  use  of  his  church  at  Geneva,  and  after- 
wards published  to  the  world,  a  form  of  administering 
the  sacrament ;  where,  when  he  comes  to  order  the  act  of 
baptizing,  he  words  it  thus  :  l.  then  the  minister  of  bap- 
tism pours  water  on  the  infant,  saying  I  baptize  thee,' 
and  so  on.  There  had  been  some  synods  in  some  dio- 
cesses  of  France,  that  had  spoken  of  affusion  without 
mentioning  immersion  at  all,  that  being  the  common 
practice  ;  but  for  an  Office  or  Liturgy  of  any  church, 
this  is,  I  believe,  the  first  in  the  world  that  prescribes 
aspersion  absolutely.  And  for  sprinkling  properly  call- 
ed, it  seems  it  was,  at  sixteen  hundred  and  forty-five, 
just  then  beginning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must  have 
began  in  the  disorderly  times  after  forty-one.  But  then 
came  the  Directory,  and  says :  '  baptism  is  to  be  admin- 
istered, not  in  private  places,  or  privately ;  but  in  the 
place  of  public  worship,  and  in  the  face  of  the  congre- 
gation,' and  so  on.  And  not  in  the  place  where  fonts, 
in  the  time  of  Popery,  were  unfitly  and  superciliously 
placed.  So  they  reformed  the  font  into  a  basin.  This 
learned  Assembly  could  not  remember,  that  fonts  to  bap- 
tize in,  had  been  always  used  by  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, long  before  the  beginning  of  Popery,  and  ever 
since  churches  were  built :  but  that  sprinkling,  for  the 
common  use  of  baptizing,  was  really  introduced  (in 
France  first,  and  then  in  other  Popish  countries)  in  times 
of  Popery.     And   that  accordingly,  all  those  countries 


f»S  THE    TRIAL    OF' 

in  which  the  usurped  power  of  the  Pope  is,  or  has  foi^ 
merly  been  owned,  have  left  off  dipping'  of  children  in 
the  font :  but  that  all  other  countries  in  the  world,  which 
had  never  regarded  his  authority,  do  still  use  it;  and 
that  basins,  except  in  cases  of  necessity,  were  never  used 
by  Papists,  or  any  other  Christians  whatsoever,  till  by 
themselves.  What  has  been  said  of  this  custom  of  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  water  in  the  ordinary  use  of  baptism, 
is  to  be  understood  only  in  reference  to  these  western 
parts  of  Europe  :  for  it  is  used  ordinarily  no  where  else." 
History  of  Inf.  Bap.,  part  II,  chap.  IX. 

"The  custom  of  sprinkling  children,  instead  of  dip- 
ping them  in  the  font,  which  at  first  was  allowed  in  case 
of  the  weakness  or  sickness  of  the  infant,  has  so  far  pre- 
vailed that  immersion  is  at  length  quite  excluded." — 
Encyclo.  Brit.,  Article,  Baptism. 

Dv.  Towerson  :  "  The  first  mention  we  find  of  asper- 
sion in  the  baptism  of  the  elder  sort,  was  in  the  case  of 
the  clinici,  or  men  who  received  baptism  upon  their  sick 
beds;  and  that  baptism  is  represented  by  St.  Cyprian  as 
legitimate,  upon  account  of  the  necessity  that  compelled 
it,  and  the  presumption  there  was  of  God's  gracious  ac- 
ceptation thereof  because  of  it.  By  which  means  the 
lawfulness  of  any  other  baptism  than  by  an  immersion, 
will  be  found  to  lie  in  the  necessity  there  may  sometimes 
be  of  another  manner  of  administration." — Sacra,  of 
Bap.,  part  III,  p.  59,  60. 

Storr  and  Flatt :  "Even  in  the  third  century,  the  bap- 
tism of  the  sick,  who  were  merely  sprinkled  with  water, 
was   entively   neglected    by  some,   and    by  others   wa* 


MU.  PEDORAPTlST.  99 

thought  inferior  to  the  baptism  of  those  who  were  in. 
health,  and  who  received  baptism  not  merely  by  aspersion, 
but  who  actually  bathed  themselves  in  water.  This  is 
evident  from  Cyprian  (Epist.  69,  ed.  Bremae,  p.  185, 
ect.)  and  Eusebius  (Hist.  Ecclles.,  L.  VI,  chap.  43,)  where 
We  find  the  following  extract  from  the  letter  of  the  Ro- 
rnah  Bishop  Cornelius:  'Novatus  received  baptism  on  a 
sick  bed,  by  aspersion,  (perikutheis,)  if  it  can  be  said 
that  such  a  person  received  baptism.'  No  person  who 
had,  during  sickness,  been  baptized  by  aspersion,  was 
admitted  into  the  clerical  office." — Theology,  p.  5,  13-4. 

Winer  in  his  Lectures  on  Archaeology,  in  manuscript, 
says  :  "  Affusion  was  at  first  applied  only  to  the  sick,  but 
Was  gradually  introduced  for  others  after  the  seventh- 
century,  and  in  the  thirteenth  became  the  prevailing 
practice  in.  the  west.  But  the  Eastern  church  has  re* 
tained  immersion  alone  as  valid." — Hinton,  p.  202. 

Neander,  vol.  I,  p.  361,  remarks  :  "  Only  with  the  sick 
was  there  an  exception,  in  regard  to  immersion." 

Stroth's  Eusebius,  vol.  I,  p.  506  :  "  Baptism  was  ad- 
ministered to  those  on  beds  of  sickness  by  sprinkling  and 
pouring  j  in  other  cases,  it  was  at  that  time  by  immer» 
sion." 

Geiseler's  Ch.  Hist.,  Ger.  Ed.,  vol.  II,  p.  274:  "For 
the  sake  of  the  sick,  the  rite  of  sprinkling  was  intro- 
duced.'''' 

Bp  Taylor :  "  It  was  a  formal  and  solemn  question, 
made  by  Magnus  to  Cyprian,  '  whether  they  are  to  be 
esteemed  right  Christians,  who  were  only  sprinkled  with, 
water,  and  not  washed  or  dipped  V     He  (Cyprian)  an- 


100  THE    THIAL    OF 

swers,  '  that  such  baptism  was  good,  when  it  was  done  in 
the  case  of  necessity ;  God  pardoning,  and  necessity 
compelling.'  " — Buctor  Bubitantium. 

Edinburg  Ency. — "  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
was  omitted  only  in  the  case  of  the  sick,  who  could  not 
leave  their  beds.  In  this  case  sprinkling  was  substi- 
tuted, which  was  called  clinici  baptism.  The  first  law 
for  sprinkling  was  obtained  in  the  following  manner: 
Pope  Stephen  II,  being  driven  from  Rome  by  Adolphus, 
king  of  the  Lombards  in  753,  fled  to  Pepin,  who,  a  short 
time  before,  had  usurped  the  crown  of  France.  Whilst 
he  remained  there,  the  monks  of  Cressy,  in  Brittany, 
consulted  him  whether  in  case  of  necessity,  baptism 
poured  on  the  head  of  the  infant,  would  be  lawful. 
Stephen  replied  that  it  would.  But  though  the  truth  of 
the  fact  be  allowed — which,  however,  some  Catholics 
deny — yet  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  was  admitted  only  in 
cases  of  necessity.  It  was  not  till  the  year  1311,  that 
the  legislature,  in  Council  held  at  Ravenna,  declared 
immersion  or  sprinkling  to  be  indifferent.  In  Scotland, 
however,  sprinkling  was  never  practised  in  ordinary 
cases,  till  after  the  Reformation  (about  the  middle  of  the 
sixteenth  century.)  From  Scotland,  it  made  its  way 
into  England,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  but  was  not 
authorized  in  the  established  church." — Jirt.  Baptism. 

4.  This  change  in  the  action  of  Baptism  was  opposed,  even 
for  the  sick. 

See  quotation  from  Dr.  Wall,  page  96. 

Valesius  observes :    "This  word,  perihutheis,  Rnfinus 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  101 

very  well  renders  perfusus,  besprinkled.  For  people 
which  were  sick  and  baptized  in  their  beds,  could  not 
be  dipped  in  water  by  the  priest,  but  were  sprinkled 
with  water  by  him.  This  baptism  was  thought  imper- 
fect, and  not  solemn  for  several  reasons.  Also  they  who 
were  thus  baptized,  were  called  ever  afterwards,  clinici  ; 
and,  by  the  twelfth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Neocesarea, 
these  clinici  were  prohibited  priesthood." — Eccles.  Hist. 
B.  VI. 

F.  Brenne,  (Roman  Catholic)  : — "  These  latter  methods 
of  baptism  (by  sprinkling  in  cases  of  necessity)  were 
called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited." — Stuart  on 
Bap.,  p.  152. 

5.   The  Reason  of  the  introduction  of  Sick-bed  Baptism  as 
a  substitute  for  Immersion. 

Campbell :  (i  If  we  go  back  to  the  old  creeds,  the 
Nicene  and  the  Athanasian,  they  put  us  to  shame.  The 
Nicene  was  a  symbol,  an  exponent  of  the  faith  of  the 
whole  world,  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  It 
says:  'We  believe  in  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins.'  The  Athanasian,  says  :  '  We  confess  one  baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins.'  " — Debate,  p.  472. 

Cyprian's  answer  to  Magnus:  "  You  ask  me,  my  dear 
son,  what  I  think  respecting  those  who  have  become 
subjects  of  divine  grace,  in  a  state  of  languor  and  sick- 
ness ;  viz :  whether  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  lawful 
Christians,  when  they  have  not  been  bathed  with  saving 
water,  (immersed  by  baptism,)  but  pcrfusi,  bedewed,  af- 
fused.     So  far  as  my  humble  opinion  goes,  I  think  the 


102  TI1E    TRIAL    Oi' 

divine  benefits  (of  the  ordinance)  are  in  no  degree  di- 
minished or  cut  short." — Stuart,  p.  179. 

Origen :  "They  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  washed 
unto  salvation.  He  that  is  baptized  unto  salvation,  re- 
ceives the  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit." — Homily  on  Ezek. 
16  :  4.,  and  on  Rom.  6. 

Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nyssa:  "  That  the  regeneration 
wrought  in  baptism  ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  the 
water,  but  to  a  divine  victue  ;  that  by  dipping  the  person 
under  water  three  times,  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  represented ;  that  without  baptism  no 
man  can  be  washed  from  sin." — Bap.  Hist.,  p.  44. 

The  Council  of  Mela  in  Numidia,  in  Africa,  enjoined 
Christians  to  baptize  their  infants  for  forgiveness  of  sin." 
Rob.  Bap.,  p.  216. 

Let  us,  said  the  Counsel  for  the  Prosecution,  close 
with  the  language  of  Dr.  Mosheim  : — "  It  was  the  cus- 
tom of  many  in  that  century,  (fourth)  to  put  off  their 
baptism  till  the  last  hour ;  that  thus  immediately  after 
receiving  by  this  rite  the  remission  of  their  sins,  they 
might  ascend  pure  and  spotless  to  the  mansions  of  life 
and  immortality." — Church  History. 

OPENING    ADDRESS    OF    THE    PRISONER'S    COUNSEL. 

By  the  permission  of  the  Court,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
the  time  has  arrived  in  the  progress  of  this  case,  when 
it  becomes  my  duty,  to  state  to  you  the  ground  of  our 
defence  for  the  Prisoner's  conduct,  on  which  we  shall 
rely  with  confidence  for  his  triumphant  acquittal  of  the 
charge    found    in    the    indictment    against    him.      The 


MJi.   1-U.UOBAl'TlST.  10.3 

strength  of  the  position  which  we  shall  establish  by 
evidence,  gives  us  strong  hope  of  the  final  issue  of  this 
controversy. 

The  charge  in  the  indictment  against  the  Prisoner,  is 
of  the  most  serious  character  to  him  and  his  friends; 
for  it  involves  in  it  their  loyalty  to  the  government,  and 
places  the  life  of  the  Prisoner  in  jeopardy.  We  had, 
with  great  confidence,  expected  from  the  grand  jury, 
.such  a  disposition  of  the  accusation  against  him,  as 
would  have  restored  my  client  to  that  position  which  he 
occupied  before  the  public,  writh  honor  to  himself  and 
liis  friends,  before  these  proceedings  were  commenced 
against  him. 

The  jury  by  its  conclusion,  brought  about  by  some 
influence  made  to  bear  upon  its  action,  has  lamentably 
disappointed  our  hopeful  expectation,  and  that  of  a  large 
number  of  our  friends.  It  is  not  our  right  to  impeach 
the  motives  by  which  its  members  were  influenced  in 
their  conduct;  but  we  have  a  right  to  say,  that  in  a  case 
no  well  understood  by  most  of  our  citizens,  it  would 
have  been  prudent  for  the  jury  to  adopt  the  popular 
judgment  of  the  Prisoner's  innocence  iii  its  action.  A 
judgment  of  this  character,  would  have  been  a  lasting 
honor  to  their  patriotism.  They  have  chosen  to  adopt 
the  alternative  of  returning  Mr.  Pedobaptist  to  the  Court 
for  trial.     We  must  submit  and  abide  the  result. 

The  judgment  of  the  grand  jury,  as  embodied  in  their 
presentment  to  the  Court,  should  not  exercise  any  influ- 
ence over  your  judgment  of  this  case,  when  you  come 
to  render  a  verdict.     You  arc    under    the  obligation  of 


304  THE    TRIAL    OF 

an  oath,  to  determine  this  controversy  only  by  the  lavr 
and  the  evidence  before  you,  and  not  by  any  outside 
influence  that  may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  your  judg- 
ment. The  position  you  all  occupy  in  the  Common- 
wealth, is  to  us  all,  a  sure  guarantee  that  you  will  ad- 
minister impartial  justice  to  the  parties.  This  is  all  we 
shall  invoice  at  your  hands,  and  its  exercise  will  surely 
acquit  the  Prisoner.  We  have  no  doubt,  your  honor, 
character  and  relation  to  this  country,  will  lead  you  to 
settle  this  controversy  only  by  law  and  evidence.  We 
have  abiding  confidence  in  the  patriotism  of  our  people, 
that  they  will  fully  appreciate  a  settlement  of  this  con- 
troversy by  law  and  evidence,  approved  by  this  Court. 

You  must  not  forget,  for  a  single  moment,  during  the 
whole  consideration  of  this  case,  the  acknowledged  loy- 
alty of  Mr.  Pejdobaptist  and  his  friends,  to  the  honor 
and  perpetuity  of  this  government.  Can  they  not  always 
point  with  pride  to  the  many  noble  and  generous  sacri- 
fices they  have  made  for  this  country,  to  subserve  its 
weal  in  the  eyes  of  other  nationalities,  as  an  undenia- 
ble proof  of  their  fidelity  1  The  annals  of  history  un- 
fold many  bright  pages,  that  record  their  daring  deeds 
for  its  defence,  in  the  hour  of  peril  and  danger.  Are 
nil  the^e  memorials  of  sterling  worth  and  fidelity,  to  be 
blotted  out  from  your  memory  l  We  answer  never — no 
never.  This  patriotic  character,  so  full  of  joyful  inter- 
est to  our  people,  is  claimed  by  the  Prisoner  and  his 
friends  ;  and  it  is  cheerfully  acknowledged  by  the  masses 
of  our  people.  We  had  thought  this  character  would 
have  been  to  them  a  sure  palladium  in  every  emergency. 


ji!I»  I'EpOBAl'TfSf.  103 

We  have  been  more  than  sadly  disappointed  in  our  ex- 
pectations. 

The  origin  of  this  trial,  and  its  history  up  to  this  time, 
prove  clearly  to  our  minds,  that  excited  feelings  and  pre- 
judice overleap  the  sacred  protection  which  character 
ought  to  give  to  all  men.  In  this  light,  1  regard  this 
case  in  its  origin  and  progress,  and  also  the  end  its  seeks 
to  consummate.  1  may  be  mistaken  j  but  the  facts  so  far 
developed  place  a  mistake  of  judgment  almost  beyond  a 
possibility. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury — after  you  shall  have  give  an 
impartial  hearing  to  all  the  facts  that  will  be  offered  to 
you,  we  believe  you  will  come  to  the  same  conclusion 
which  we  have  expressed  in  relation  to  the  origin  and 
progress  of  this  trial,  and  that  you  will  so  express  your- 
selves in  the  judgment  you  shall  offer  to  the  Court  and 
public.  A  verdict  of  this  character  will  blot  out  forever 
the  claims  of  Mr.  Baptist  and  friends,  of  being  the  only 
persons  loyal  to  our  country's  Constitution.  For  this  is 
their  high  profession,  revealed  in  the  charge  alleged 
against  Mr.  Pedoeaptist. 

We  have  always  labored  as  zealously  as  others  can  do, 
to  maintain  inviolate  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  We 
have  also  been  ready  at  any  moment,  when  called  upon, 
to  unite  with  all  good  citizens  to  arrest  the  sacrilegious 
hand  that  would  destroy  the  sacred  institution  of  bap- 
tism, from  the  Magna  Charta  of  Christianity.  Yet,  in 
view  of  this  fact,  they  tell  us  we  are  guilty  of  one  of  the 
highest  crimes  known  to  our  laws — the  practical  abroga- 
tion of  Christian  Baptism,  as  taught  in  the  Constitution  I 


10G  THE    TRIAL    OF 

The  impeachment  of  our  conduct  with  this  crime,  we 
meet  with  indignant  scorn,  and  shall  hold  the  prosecu- 
tor, in  this  case,  responsible  for  all  that  law  will  permit 
us  to  claim  et  his  hands. 

The  general  sympathy  of  our  people  for  the  Prisoner, 
is  witnessed  by  the  multitude  of  our  citizens  who  have 
come  to  this  place  from  all  parts  of  the  Commonwealth, 
to  attend  the  trial,  and,  many  of  them3  to  give  aid  to  the 
Prisoner.  This  general  sympathy  ought  to  be  to  us  all, 
significant  of  the  popular  pulsation.  If  the  question 
now  before  us  for  a  legal  decision,  was  left  to  the  vox 
pojpuli  for  determination,  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture  the 
judgment  that  would  be  rendered.  The  word  "Acquit- 
tal" would  be  proclaimed  in  a  voice  of  triumph  that 
would  make  these  walls  tremble  by  the  power  of  its 
notes,  and  drown  all  opposition. 

The  reason  of  this  popular  sentiment,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  conviction  of  the  Prisoner's  entire  innocence  of 
the  crime  of  high  treason  against  the  government.  For 
many  of  the  multitude  present,  have  been  taught  that  his 
modes  of  baptism  can  be  traced  up  to  an  early  period  in 
the  history  of  this  government  )  and  the  antiquity  of 
these  modes  is  to  them  a  pledge  of  their  divine  authority. 

You  must  also  remember  this  fact,  a  verdict  of  guilty 
at  your  hands,  will  implicate  the  most  venerated  men  of 
this  country,  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  with  the 
Prisoner's  crime.  This  momentous  fact,  should  make 
you  ponder  long  before  you  pronounce  a  judgment  of  this 
kind.  We  cannot  for  a  moment  entertain  the  thought, 
that  your  action  will  be  of  the  character  above  contem- 


Mil.  TEDOBAI'TiST.  107 

plated,  because  the  Prisoner  has  only  walked  in  the  light 
of  many  illustrious  examples  revered  in  the  annals  of 
our  history. 

You  must  also  remember  this  fact,  during  the  hearing 
of  the  evidence  and  coming  to  a  final  conclusion  of  the 
whole  case,  that  the  burden  rests  upon  the  prosecution, 
to  prove  the  fact  alleged  in  the  indictment  against  the 
Prisoner.  Our  only  duty  is  to  show  that  the  proof  offer- 
ed does  not  sustain  the  allegation.  It  is  this  duty  that 
compels  us  at  present  to  make  a  defence  of  our  client's 
conduct,  and  in  this  way  show  the  entire  impossibility 
of  the  Commonwealth,  to  make  out  the  charge  in  the 
indictment  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  I  am  satisfied 
we  shall  show  the  entire  insufficiency  of  the  testimony 
in  evidence  by  the  prosecution,  to  prove  what  it  is  bound 
to  do  according  to  the  forms  of  law. 

PRINCIPLES   OF    LAW. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  lay  down  a  number  of  con- 
siderations that  are  well  founded,  and  which  ought  to 
guide  us  in  the  investigation  of  this  controversy.  There 
is  nothing  of  such  importance  to  a  judicial  investiga* 
tion  as  the  knowledge  of  the  strength  of  evidence,  and 
the  amount  of  influence  it  should  exercise  over  our  judg» 
ment.  To  a  careful  consideration  of  these  facts,  we 
now  call  your  attention. 

1.  That  baptizo,  in  the  law  is  a  Greek  word,  and  not 
an  English  word.  This  fact  is  fully  testified  to  by  Mr. 
Classic,  one  of  the  principal  witnesses  of  the  prosecu- 
tion* 


108  THE    TRIAL    Or 

2.  We  find  that  baptizo  was  used  by  the  Greeks,  only 
in  reference  to  common  occurrences  in  life,  and  not  to 
their  religious  washings.  This  is  clearly  in  evidence 
from  all  the  examples  given  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Classic.  This  limitation  of  its  use  is  significant.  Its 
sacred  acceptation  cannot  be  legitimately  ascertained  by 
its  use  among  the  Greeks,  because  they  do  not  give  it 
such  an  appropriation. 

3.  This  word  is  used  by  the  Jews  to  denote  some  of 
their  religious  washings.  This  fact  is  placed  beyond  a 
doubt,  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Translator.  This  fact 
signifies  that  the  Jews  used  baptizo  in  a  sense  adapted 
to  these  washings,  and  not  as  adapted  to  common  things 
in  life  as  used  by  the  Greeks. 

4.  It  is  a  common  occurrence  for  words  to  depart  from 
their  primary  meaning,  and  assume,  by  use,  a  new  signi- 
fication. In  support  of  this  principle,  we  shall  read  the 
following  authorities. 

Ernesti,  as  published  with  notes  by  Professor  Stuart, 
p.  14.  "  The  question  as  to  the  idiom  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, turns  on  the  use  of  such  words  and  phrases  as 
designate  those  objects  that  the  Greeks  are  accustomed 
to  designate ;  and  the  question  here  must  be  whether 
such  words  in  the  New  Testament  are  used  in  the  same 
sense  which  the  Greeks  attached  to  them  ;  and  whether 
phrases  not  only  have  the  same  syntax  as  that  of  the 
classic  Greek,  but  also  the  same  sense  as  in  the  Greek 
authors:  for  this  is  essential  to  the  purity  of  language," 
&c. 

"  The  question  being  thus  stated  and  defined,  we  deny, 


MR.  rEDOBAPTlST.  109 

without  hesitation,  that  the  diction  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  pure  Greek,  and.  contend  that  it  is  modelled  after 
the  Hebrew,  not  only  in  single  words,  phrases  and  fig- 
ures of  speech;  but  in  the  general  texture  of  the  lan- 
guage. This  can  be  established  by  clear  examples,  more 
numerous  than  those  who  agree  with  us  in  opinion  have 
supposed." 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  says  :  "  Those  words  in  particu- 
lar, which  have  been  in  most  familiar  use  with  the  old 
interpreters,  and  have  been  current  in  the  explanations 
given  in  the  Hellenistical  synagogues  and  schools,  have 
with  their  naturalization  among  the  Jews,  acquired  in 
the  Jewish  use,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  '  an 
infusion  of  the  national  spirit.'  Classical  use,  both  in 
the  Greek  and  in  the  Latin,  is  not  only  in  this  study, 
sometimes  unavailable,  but  may  mislead.  The  sacred 
use  and  the  classical  are  often  very  different." 

5.  That  the  acceptation  of  baptizo  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  is  the  only  tribunal  to  us,  that  can  determine 
what  was  intended  to  be  done  in  the  constitutional  law 
of  baptism.  No  one  dares  to  doubt  their  authority  in 
this  country,  because  it  is  made  the  supreme  tribunal  in 
this  land,  to  infallibly  determine  all  constitutional  ques- 
tions that  may  arise  among  our  citizens.  This  principle 
of  law  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  counsel's  opening  ad- 
dress. On  this  ground,  1  would  remark,  the  decisive  bat- 
tle must  be  fought  on  this  occasion. 

6.  The  manner  of  doing  anything  commanded,  is  a 
matter  of  indifference,  unless  the  manner  of  perform- 
ance is  commanded.     This  is  a  self  evident  principle, 


1 10  THE   TRIAL   OF 

because  the  Lawgiver  only  seeks  the  thing  commanded 
to  be  done — this  all  the  law  contemplates  in  its  termi- 
nology. To  this  principle  of  action,  the  counsel  can 
file  no  reasonable  objection.  He  will  not  become  so 
exceedingly  insane  to  assume  the  manner  of  baptizing 
is  commanded.  If  not,  then  all  are  free  to  use  what 
manner  of  baptizing  is  most  suitable  and  convenient. 
We  shall  on  this  point  content  ourselves  until  it  is  con- 
tested by  the  counsel. 

If  the  Court  and  jury  will  give  to  these  incontestable 
considerations  that  weight  they  imperatively  demand, 
Ave  shall  not  entertain  any  fears  as  to  the  result  that  will 
follow.  That  conclusion  will  bring  our  labors  to  an 
honorable  close,  which  our  consciences  and  our  country 
will  approve. 

The  proposition  in  way  of  defence  of  the  Prisoner's 
conduct,  which  we  shall  prove,  is  the  following :  That 
baptizo  at  the  time  of  its  incorporation  into  the  Constitu- 
tion,  signified  a  thing  to  be  done,  and  not  the  manner  of 
doing  it.  We  shall  prove  this  proposition  by  the  fol- 
lowing authorities : 

1.  By  the  testimony  of  the  Lexicons.  They  will  prove 
a  variety  of  meanings  to  baptizo,  and  necessarily  over- 
turn the  foundation  on  which  rests  the  argument  of  the 
prosecution. 

2.  By  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Translator.  He  will  teach 
you  plainly  that  he  has  regarded  baptizo  to  be  indefinite 
in  character,  and  so  translated  it. 

3.  By  men  of  undoubted  learning  in  this  Common- 
wealth,   Their  testimony  will  fully  justify  the  Prisoner's 


mi.  PEDOBAP'ilS'I.  lit 

conduct,  and   place  its  honorable   character  beyond  a 
question. 

4.  By  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  being 
the  real  baptism  of  which  water  baptism  is  only  an  em- 
blem— its  action  being  by  pouring  the  other  must  be  so 
likewise. 

5.  By  the  history  of  the  church  in  its  administration 
of  baptism.  Here  we  will  find  a  variety  of  modes  of 
baptism  practised.  This  will  account  for  the  church 
understanding  the  law  of  baptism  to  be  a  thing  to  be 
done — the  manner  of  execution  left  to  the  discretion  of 
all  to  decide. 

From  all  these  classes  of  witnesses,  we  expect  to  prove 
to  your  satisfaction,  that  baptizo  had  not,  at  the  time  of 
its  adoption  by  the  Lawgiver  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
a  determinate  or  single  signification,  but  was  used  with 
a  variety  of  acceptations  to  designate  a  common  object, 
which  could  be  performed  by  a  variety  of  modes.  This 
fact  suggests  the  reason  of  its  adoption  (taking  our  view 
of  this  subject)  by  the  institutor  of  baptism,  because 
only  a  word  of  this  generic  character  would  be  adapted 
to  various  climates  and  countries,  to  denote  the  thing  to 
be  done  to  all  the  subjects  of  baptism. 

One  of  the  leading  objects  of  governmental  institu- 
tions  is,  to  nourish  and  foster  a  spirit  of  loyalty  among 
all  its  subjects.  It  does  not  so  much  seek  after  a  uniform- 
ity  of  custom,  as  a  uniformity  of  spirit  among  its  loyal 
subjects.  We  have  this  principle  practically  exemplified 
in  the  conduct  of  the  parties  in  controversy,  except  the 
prescriptive  policy  of  Mr.  Baptist, 


I  12  TIJfi    TRIAL   OF 

We  hope  before  we  are  done  with  this  case,  to  make 
the  view  we  have  taken  of  it,  so  clear  to  you  all,  that 
you  will  cordially  agree  with  us  in  our  conclusion  of  the 
whole  subject.  And  after  the  whole  testimony  is  in  evi- 
dence, with  our  argument  therefrom,  we  will  not  be 
placed  in  a  position,  we  think,  that  will  lead  us  to  claim 
the  benefit  of  a  reasonable  doubt.  We  wish  to  secure 
a  verdict  that  will  triumphantly  justify  the  Prisoner. — 
We  now  invoke  your  attention  to  the  evidence  we  shall 
offer. 

MR.  LEXICON. 

Mr.  Lexicon  was  again  called  to  the  witness  stand. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Will  you  please  to  give  us  the  testimony 
of  Messrs.  Groves,  Wahl,  Greenfield  and  Parkhurst,  on 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  ? 

A. — Cheerfully. 

Groves:  "To  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge;  to 
wash,  cleanse,  purify — Baptizomai,  to  wash  one's  self, 
bathe,"  &c. 

Wahl  defines  it,  first :  "  To  wash,  perform  ablution, 
cleanse ;  secondly,  to  immerse,"  &c. 

Greenfield  :  "  To  immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink  > 
and  in  the  New  Testament,  to  wash,  perform  ablution, 
cleanse ;  to  immerse." 

Parkhurst:  "To  immerse  in.  or  with  water  in  token 
of  purification." 

Q. — Have  we  now  a  fair  representation  of  baptize, 
from  your  family  1 

A. — Yes  sir. 


JIK.    I'EDOBAPTIST.  113 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Have  you  not  confounded  the  effects  of 
baptizo,  in  your  definition  of  this  word  5  and  can  the 
effects  of  an  action  belong  to  its  definition'! 

A. — The  use  of  the  word  in  the  language  will  deter- 
mine whether  we  are  right  or  not. 

Q. — Have  you  sustained  these  definitions  by  authori- 
ties from  the  language  1 

A. — You  can  clearly  see,  our  family  with  one  voice 
declare  that  immerse  is  the  primary  meaning  of  baptizo. 
It  is  true,  that  some  members  of  the  family,  place  the 
effects  of  dipping  in  connection  with  this  primary  mean- 
ing, and  that  for  this  they  have  given  no  reliable  authori- 
ties, from  its  use  in  the  language. 

MR.    TRANSLATOR. 

Mr.  Translator  was  next  called  to  the  witness  stand. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Will  you  please  to  read  those  passages  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  where  wash  is  given  as  sy- 
nonymous to  baptizo  ? 

A. — I  will  do  so  very  willingly. 

Judith,  in  c.  12:  7:  "Then  Holofernes  commanded 
his  guard  that  they  should  not  slay  her :  thus  she  abode 
in  the  camp  three  days,  and  went  out  in  the  night  into 
the  valley  of  Bethulia,  and  washed  (ebaptizeto)  herself  in 
a  fountain  of  water  by  the  camp." 

Sirack,  c.  31 :  25  :  "  If  any  one  who  is  washed  (bapti- 
zomenos)  from  a  dead  body  toucheth  it  again,  what  is  he 
profited  by  his  bath." 

Mark  7 :  i> :  "  And  when  they  (Pharisees)  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash,  (baptisontai)  they  eat  not, 


1  14  THE    TitlAL    OF 

And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  re- 
ceived to  hold,  as  the  washing  (baptismous)  of  cups,  and 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables."  Also  in  the  8th 
verse,  "  the  washing  (baptismous)  of  pots  and  cups." 

Lake  11:  38:  "And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marveled  that  he  had  not  first  washed  (cbaptisthee)  be- 
fore dinner." 

Heb.  9  :  10:  "  Only  in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers 
washings  (baptismous.)" 

Q.  C.  Pro. —  Why  have  you  not  given  some  authority 
for  rendering  baptizo  by  wash  in  these  places  1 

A. — We  were  practically  opposed  to  Mr.  Baptist. 

The  Prisoner's  Counsel  said,  as  the  other  side  has 
paraded  before  you  a  large  number  of  Pkdobaptists  as 
witnesses,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  we  shall  meet  them 
with  men  of  equal  learning  and  authority.  Their  testi- 
mony you  will  find  fully  sustains  the  conduct  of  the  Pri- 
soner. We  offer  them  to  prove  that  immersion  is  not 
the  exclusive  mode  of  baptism. 

Dr.  Owen  was  called  and  qualified. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — What  is  your  understanding  of  baptizo,  in 
the  law  of  baptism  1 

A. — "Baptizo  signifies  to  wash  $  as  instances  out  of  all 
authors  may  be  given,  Suidas,  Hesychius,  Julius  Pollux, 
Phavorinus,  and  Eustachius.  It  is  first  used  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, JVJark  1:8$  John  1 :  33,  and  to  the  same  purpose 
in  Acts  1:5.  In  every  place  it  either  signifies  to  pour, 
or  the  expression  is  equivocal.  '  1  baptize  you  with  wa- 
ter, but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;'  which 
is  the  accomplishment  of  that  promise,  '  that  the  Holy 


ME.  PED0BAPT1ST.  115 

Ghost  shall  be  poured  on  them.'"  Again — "No  one 
place  can  be  given  in  the  Scriptures,  wherein  baptizo 
doth  necessarily  signify  either  to  dip  or  plunge." 
Again — "  In  this  sense,  as  it  expresseth  baptism,  it  de- 
notes to  wash  only,  and  not  to  dip  at  all :  for  so  it  is 
expounded,  Tit.  3:  5,"  &c.  Again— "  Wherefore  in 
this  sense,  a&it  is  applied  unto  the  ordinance,  the  sense 
of  dipping  is ;  utterly  excluded."-^— Owen's  Works,  vol.  21. 

Dr.  John  Dick,  Professor  of-TheoIogy  to  the  United 
Session  Chureh,  says:  "We  here  see  that  nothing  cer- 
tain as  to  mode  can  be  learned  from  the  original  term 
baptizo,  because  it  has  different  meanings,  signifying, 
sometimes  to-  immerse,  and  sometimesto  wash." — Dick's 
Divinity.       -  .  ;  .    .. 

Dr.  Thomas-  Scott,  says:  "The  word  was  adopted 
from  the  Greek  authors,  and  a  sense  put, upon  it  by  the 
inspired  writers,  according  to  the  style  of  Scripture,  to 
signify  the  use  of  water  in' the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
and  in  many  things  of  a  spiritual  nature,  which  stood 
related  to  it.  Some  indeed  contend  zealously,  that  bap- 
tism always  signifies  immersion ;  but  the  use  of  the 
words  baptize  and  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  can- 
not accord  with  this  exclusive  interpretation." 

Dr.  Dwight  says  :  "T  have  examined  almost  one  hun- 
dred instances,  in  which  the  word  baptizo  and  its  deriva- 
tives are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  four  in  the 
Septuagint ;  and  these,  so  far  as  1  have  observed,  being 
all  the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this  examina- 
tion, it  is  to  my  apprehension  evident,  that  the  following 
things  are  true  :     That    the  primary   meaning  of  these 


116  THE   TRIAL   OF 

terms  is  cleansing  ;  the  effect,  not  the  mode  of  washing. 
That  the  mode  is  usually  referred  to  incidentally,  where- 
ever  the  words  are  mentioned,  and  this  always  the  case, 
wherever  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  mentioned,  and  a 
reference  made  at  the  same  time,  to  the  mode  of  admin- 
istration. That  these  words,  although  often  capable  of 
denoting  any  mode  of  washing,  whether  by  affusion, 
sprinkling  or  immersion,  (since^cleansing  was  familiarly 
accomplished  by  the  Jews  in  all  these  ways,)  yel  in  many 
instances,  cannot  without  obvious  impropriety,  be  made 
to  signify  immersion;  and  in  others  cannot  signify  it  at 
all."— Bwight's  Theology,  vol.  4,  p.B338. 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says:  "In  what  form  baptism  was 
originally  administered,  has  been  deemed  a  subject 
worthy  of  serious  dispute.  Were  the  people  dipped  or 
sprinkled  \  for  it  is  certain  baplo  and  baptizo  mean  both." 
Comment  on  Matt.  3 :  6. 

Mr.  Kichard  Watson  (a  theological  writer  of  note  in 
the  Methodist  Church)  says:  "The  verb  with  its  deri- 
vatives, signifies  to  dip  the  hand  in  the  dish,  Matt.  36  : 
23;  to  stain  a  vesture  with  blood,  Rev.  19:  13;  to  wet 
the  body  with  dew,  Dan.  4:  33;  to  paint  or  smear  the 
face  with  colors  ;  to  stain  the  hand  by  pressing  a  sub- 
stance;  to  be  overwhelmed  in  the  waters  as  a  sunken 
ship;  to  be  drowned  by  falling  into  water;  to  sink  in 
the  neuter  sense  ;  to  immerse  totally;  to  plunge  up  to 
the  neck;  to  be  immersed  up  to  the  middle;  to  be 
drunken  with  wine;  to  be  dyed,  tinged  and  imbued  ;  to 
wash  by  effusion  of  water  ;  to  pour  water  upon  the  hands, 


MR.  PED0EA?TI3T.  117 

or  any  other*part  of  the  body  ;  to  sprinkle." — Institutes, 
p.  442. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Mr.  Watson,  have  you  in  your  Institutes, 
given  the  authorities  on  which  you  ground  such  a  variety 
of  meaning  % 

A. — I  give  authority  for  the  Scriptural  acceptation  of 
bapto,  in  what  I  have  said.  As  to  baptizo,  I  have  not 
named  the  authorities. 

The  Counsel  said  before  any  others  are  called,  he  would 
ask  Dr.  Clark  a  question. 

Q.  C.  Pro. — Dr.  Clark,  as  you  have  given  us  your  un- 
derstanding of  baptism  on  Matt.  3 :  6,  will  you  please  to 
give  us  your  understanding  of  baptism  as  found  in  1 
Cor.  15:  291 

A. — "  The  baptism  which  they  received,  they  consid- 
ered an  enblem  of  the  natural  death  and  resurrection. 
This  doctrine  St.  Paul  most  pointedly  preached,  Rom.  6  : 
3,  4,  5.  The  sum  of  the  Apostle's  meaning  appears  to 
be  this :  If  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  those 
who,  in  becoming  Christians,  expose  themselves  to  all 
manner  of  privations,  crosses,  severe  sufferings,  and  a 
violent  death,  can  have  no  compensation,  nor  any  motive 
sufficient  to  induce  them  to  expose  themselves  to  such 
miseries.  But  as  they  receive  baptism,  as  an  emblem  of 
death,  in  voluntarily  going  under  the  water ;  so  they  re- 
ceive it  as  an  emblem  of  the  resurrection  unto  eternal 
life,  in  coming  up  out  of  the  water  ;  thus  they  are  bap- 
tized for  the  dead,  in  perfect  faith  of  the  resurrection."- — 
Com.  1  Cor.  15:  29. 

Counsel  for  the  Prisoner  next  called  Dr.  Schmucker. 


118  •  THE    T1UAL    OF 

S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.  D.,  Professor  at  Gettysburg,  Pa., 
says  :  "  But  the  question  is,  whether  immersion  is  en- 
joined in  the  Scripture,  and  consequently  is  one  essen- 
tial part  of  baptism,  so  that  without  it  no  baptism  is 
valid,  though  it  contain  every  other  requisite.  On  this 
subject  the  Lutheran  church  has  always  agreed  with  the 
great  majority  of  Christian  denominations,  in  maintain- 
ing the  negative,  and  in  regarding  the  quantity  of  water 
employed  in  baptism,  as  well  as  the  mode  of  exhibiting 
it,  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance." — 
Popular  Theology,  p.  263. 

Dr.  Bogue,  in  his  Theological  Lectures,  says,  p.  312,: 
"  Baptism,  according  to  its  original  etymology,  signifies 
to  tinge,  to  stain.  To  wash,  or  to  wet  in  order  thereto. 
Used  with  water,  oil,  blood  ;  Lev.  8 :  6,  12,  14.  It  is 
used  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  generic  word  or  term  to  de- 
note dedication  and  purification.  It  appears  from  the 
use  of  the  word,  that  baptism  consists  in  applying  water 
to  the  body  for  a  religious  purpose,  but  it  does  not  par- 
ticularly express  how,  or  in  what  quantity.  It  is  not 
certainly  known,  by  any  express  declarations,  what  mode 
of  baptism,  whether  by  washing,  plunging,  or  affusion 
was  used  in  the  New  Testament.  The  word  baptism  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament,  not  only  for  applying  a 
thing  to  water  by  immersion,  but  also  for  applying  water 
to  a  thing  by  affusion  or  washing." — Mark  7:4;  Luke 
11:  38." 

Dr.  George  Hill,  principal  of  St.  Mary's  College,  St. 
Andrews,  says :  "Both  sprinkling  and  immersion  are 
implied  in  the  word  baptizo  ;  both  were  used  in  the  reli- 


MP..    PEDOBAPTIsff.  1 19 

gious  ceremonies  of  the  Jews,  and  both  may  be  con- 
sidered as  significant  of  the  purpose  of  baptism/' — 
HilPs  Divinity,  p.  659. 

C.  Pro. — How  was  baptism  performed  at  the  time  of 
its  introduction  1 

A — "A  rite  borrowed  from  the  Jewish  custom  of 
plunging  into  water  the  proselytes  from  heathenism  to 
the  law  of  Moses,  but  consecrated  by  the  words  of  Jesus, 
and  the  universal  practice  of  his  disciples,  as  the  mode  of 
admitting  members  into  the  Christian  society." — Ibid7 
p.  189. 

Q. — Mr.  Hill,  will  you  inform  us  what  was  the  an- 
cient action  of  baptism  1 

A. — "The  Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  6:  4,  5,  6,  illustrates 
this  connection  by  an  allusion  drawn  from  the  ancient 
method  of  administering  baptism.  The  immersion  in 
Water  of  the  bodies  of  those  who  were  baptized,  is  an 
emblem  of  that  death  unto  sin,  by  which  the  conversion 
of  Christians  is  generally  expressed  :  the  rising  out  of  the 
water,  the  breathing  the  air  again  after  having  been  for 
some  time  in  another  element,  is  an  emblem  of  that  new 
life,  which  Christians  by  their  profession  are  bound,  and 
by  the  power  of  their  religion  are  enabled  to  lead.  The 
time  during  which  they  remained  under  the  water  is  a 
kind  of  temporary  death,  after  the  image  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  during  which  they  deposited  under  the  stream 
the  sins  of  which  the  old  man  was  composed." — Ibid, 
p.  660. 

Again — "  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  immersion 
was  more  commonly  practised  in  the  beginning." — Ibid, 


120  THE   TRIAL    OF 

Q. — Do  you  not  teach,  that  the  church  has  a  liberty 
on  the  action  of  baptism  % 

A. — u  The  greater  part  of  Christians  have  found  them- 
selves at  liberty,  in  a  matter  very  far  from  being  essen- 
tial, to  adopt  that  practice  which  is  most  convenient, 
and  most  suited  to  the  habits  of  colder  climates." — Ibid, 
p.  559. 

The  Counsel  said  he  would  suspend  the  argument  he 
intended  to  offer  on  the  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  until 
his  address  to  the  Court  and  jury.  He  said  he  would 
now  proceed  to  call  witnesses  to  prove  the  historical 
view  of  this  subject. 

Origen  was  called  and  qualified. 

Q.  C.  Pri. — Will  you  please  to  state  how  you  described 
the  transaction  at  Mount  CarmaH 

A. — "How  came  you  to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should 
come,  would  baptize,  who  did  not,  in  Ahab's  time,  bap- 
tize the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which  was  to  be  washed 
before  it  was  burnt,  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire  % 
But  he  ordered  the  priests  to  do  that,  not  once  only,  but 
says :  Do  it  the  second  time  ;  and  they  did  it  the  sec- 
ond time ;  and,  do  it  the  third  time ;  and  they  did  it  the 
third  time.  He,  therefore,  that  did  not  himself  baptize 
them,  but  assigned  that  work  to  others,  how  was  he  likely 
to  baptize,  when  he,  according  to  Malachi's  prophecy, 
should  come." — WalVs  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.,  vol.  ii,  p. 
332. 

Clemens  Alexandrius,  speaking  of  a  backslider  whom 
John  the  Apostle  was  the  means  of  reclaiming,  says: 
"  He  was  baptized  a  second  time  with  tears." 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  12  J 

Athanasius  reckons  up  eight  several  baptisms:  "1.  That 
of  the  flood.  2.  That  of  Moses  in  the  sea.  3.  The  leg  1 
baptisms  of  the  Jews  after  uncleanncss.  4.  That  ci 
John  the  Baptist.  5.  That  of  Jesus.  6.  That  of  tears. 
7.  That  of  martyrdom.     And  8.  Of  eternal  fire." 

Gregory  Nazianzen  says  :  "  I  know  of  a  fourth  bap- 
tism, that  by  martyrdom  and  blood  ;  and  1  know  a  fifth, 
that  of  tears."  Basil  tells  us  of  a  martyr  that  was  "  bap- 
tized into  Christ  with  his  own  blood." — Pond  on  Bap., 
p.  34. 

Cyprian  says  in  answer  to  a  question  propounded  to 
.him  on  baptism:  "  You  inquire,  also,  dear  son,  what  I 
think  of  such  as  obtain  the  grace  in  time  of  their  sick- 
ness and  infirmity,  whether  they  are  to  be  accounted 
lawful  Christians,  because  they  are  not  washed  all  over 
with  the  water  o*f  salvation,  but  have  only  some  of  it 
poured  on  them.  In  which  matter  I  would  use  so  much 
modesty  and  humility,  as  not  to  prescribe  so  positively, 
but  every  one  should  have  the  freedom  of  his  own 
thoughts,  and  do  as  he  thinks  best.  1  do  according  to 
the  best  of  my  mean  capacity,  judge  thus :  That  the 
divine  favors  are  not  maimed  or  weakened,  so  as  that 
any  thing  less  than  the  whole  of  them  is  conveyed, 
where  the  benefit  of  them  is  received  with  a  full  and 
complete  faith,  both  of  the  giver  and  receiver." — WalVs 
Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.,  5,  ii,  pp.  357,  358. 

"And  no  man,  need,  therefore,  think  otherwise,  be- 
cause these  sick  people,  when  they  receive  the  grace  of 
our  Lord,  have  nothing  bi.it  an  affusion  or  sprinkling, 
when  as  the  Holy  Scripture,  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel, 


122  TtfF,    TRIAL    OF 

says '.  <  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean,'  &c.  "  If  any  one  think  they  obtain 
no  benefit,  as  baring  only  an  affusion  of  the  water  of 
salvation,  do  not  let  him  mistake  so  far,  as  that  the  par* 
ties,  if  they  recover  of  their  sickness,  should  be  baptized 
again."— Ibid,  pp.  386-7. 

Aurelius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  A.  D.,  390,  speaking 
of  John's  baptism,  says :  "  I'erfundit  Suvio — he  poured 
water  on  them  in  the  river." 

Walafried  Strabo,  abbot  of  the  convent  of  St.  Gall, 
says:  "It  should  be  noted,  that  many  have  been  bap- 
tized, not  only  by  immersion,  but  by  affusion  (non  solum 
mergendo,  verum  etiam  de  super  fundendo)  and  they 
may  be  baptized  in  this  manner,  if  there  be  any  neces- 
sity for  it ;  as,  in  the  passion  of  St.  Lawrence,  we  read 
of  a  certain  person  baptized  by  water  brought  in  a  pitcher 
(urceo  allato.")  So  Thomas  Aquinas,  in  Summa  Theoh 
III,  ques.  66,  art.  7,  says :  "  It  is  safer  to  baptize  by  the 
mode  of  immersion,  because  this  has  common  usage  in 
its  favor."  But  these  words  show  that  a  different  usage 
was  coming  in,  and  that  Aquinas  did  not  look  upon  it 
with  any  strong  disapprobation.  In  the  Statut.  Synod. 
Leodiens.,  anno  1287,  c.  2,  the  mode  of  baptism  is  pre- 
scribed, and  it  is  there  said,  "  That  danger  in  baptizing 
may  be  avoided  ;  let  not  the  head  of  the  child  be  im- 
mersed in  water,  but  let  the  priest  pour  water  three  times 
upon  the  head  of  the  child,  with  a  basin,  or  some  other 
clean  and  decent  vessel,  still  holding  the  child  carefully 
with  his  hand."  The  synod  at  Cambray  says :  "That 
danger  in  baptizing  may  be  avoided  ;  let  not  (the  priest) 


MR.    PEDOBAPTJST,  123 

immerse  the  head  of  the  child  in  the  water,  but,  when 
he  baptizes,  let  him  pour  water  thrice  upon  the  top  of  his 
head,  with  a  basin  or  other  clean  and  decent  vessel."— 
Stuart.  Bap.,]).  171. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner,  at  this  stage  of  the  pro- 
ceeding, said,  he  would  close  his  defence,  not  calling  wit- 
nesses, until  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  would  give 
a  definite  view  of  the  two  arguments  which  he  had  post- 
poned till  his  closing  address.  It  is  justice  to  the  Pri- 
soner, said  he,  that  makes  me  take  this  coarse.  Unless 
I  have  all  the  points  on  which  he  relies  before  I  close,  I 
shall  be  unable  to  do  my  duty  to  the  Prisoner. 

The  Court  said  the  gentleman  was  correct  in  the  posi- 
tion he  had  just  taken.  It  is  the  order  of  the  Court, 
that  the  Counsel  for  the  prosecution  proceed  to  give  his 
understanding  of  the  two  arguments,  not  yet  presented, 

NEW   TESTAMENT    BAPTISMS. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Commonwealth  said,  that  in  obe- 
dience to  the  order  of  the  Court,  he  would  now  proceed  to 
unfold  the  arguments,  the  discussion  of  which  he  had 
suspended  until  his  closing  address.  The  demand  (he 
said)  of  the  Prisoner's  Counsel,  was  reasonable,  and 
should  be  cheerfully  met  at  this  time.  He  said,  he 
wished  to  give  the  Prisoner  every  legal  opportunity  to 
justify  his  conduct  before  the  Court,  Jury  and  Country. 
The  first  point  to  be  noticed  is,  the  persons,  places,  and 
circumstances,  connected  with  the  baptisms  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  plainly  refer  to  immersion  as  the 
action  performed. 


124  THK    TRIAL    OF 

The  baptism  of  John  will  claim  our  attention  first ;  be» 
cause  it  is  first  in  order  of  time,  and  so  noted  by  the 
Sacred  Historians.  The  design  of  his  ministry  was  to 
prepare  the  people  for  the  reception  of  the  promised 
Christ,  when  he  should  be  introduced  to  the  Jewish  pub- 
lic. The  rite  of  baptism  practised  by  him  as  a  divine 
institution,  and  as  a  preparatory  measure  to  all  that  re- 
ceived his  testimony  concerning  the  promised  Messiah, 
will  now  demand  our  attention.  This  will  lead  us  to 
note  the  following  particulars,  concerning  his  baptism  of 
the  multitude  : 

1.  The  charade?'  of  the  persons  he  baptized. — This  is 
clearly  settled  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  when  they  declare, 
the  persons  he  baptized  to  be  those  "confessing  their  sins.^ 
Matt.  3:6.    Mark  1:5. 

2.  The  places  where  he  baptized. — The  Evangelist  notes 
in  the  first  place,  "  in  the  river  Jordan." — Mark  1 :  5. 
Matt.  3 :  6.  Secondly,  "  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there." — John  3:  23.  In 
this  language  we  have  the  divine  reason  for  baptizing 
at  this  place,  "  because  there  was  much  water  there." 
Thirdly,  it  is  said  he  baptized  "  in  the  wilderness,"  and 
"  beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing."  In  the 
wilderness,  denotes  that  part  of  the  river  that  passed 
through  it,  and  in  the  other  passage  we  have  the  place 
named  where  the  baptizing  was  done.  In  all  the  places 
named  where  he  baptized,  there  is  no  indication  that  he 
baptized  in  a  house,  or  place,  where  there  was  no  stream 
of  water. 

3.  The  baptism  of  our  Saviour  by  John. — We  note  the 


MR.    VEDOBAPTIST.  125 

following  particulars  connected  with  this  baptism : 
(1)  "Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto 
John,  to  be  baptized."  (2)  He  demands  baptism  at  his 
hands,  and  John  consented.  (3)  The  place  in  which 
John  baptized  Him — "  in  Jordan."  (4)  His  coming  up 
out  of  the  water  after  his  baptism. 

The  preposition  that  gave  Him  a  position  in  the  water, 
is  en,  and  the  one  that  brings  Him  out  of  it,  after  his 
baptism,  is  apo.  1  am  aware  that  it  is  said  that  apo  sig- 
nifies from  and  not  out  of.  With  this  signification  of  it 
here,  it  would  of  necessity  designate  the  place  in  the 
river  where  He  was  baptized,  and  this  the  starting  point 
from  which  He  came ;  for  en  places  Him  in  the  river, 
and  apo  designates  the  point  from  whence  He  came  after 
the  baptism.  The  facts  in  regard  to  these  two  preposi- 
tions, in  their  relation  to  Christ's  baptism,  make  out  all 
we  demand  for  this  baptism. 

4.  The  baptism  of  the  Eunuch. — The  following  things 
are  found  in  relation  to  this  baptism:  (1)  The  person 
baptized  was  a  believer  in  Christ.  (2)  The  place  of  his 
baptism,  "  a  certain  water."  (3)  The  circumstances 
connected  with  this  baptism.  (1)  They  came  unto  a 
certain  water.    (2)  His  application  to  Philip  for  baptism. 

(3)  "  And    they   went    down    both    into    the    water." 

(4)  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch.  (5)  They  came  up  out 
of  the  water  after  the  baptism. 

The  prepositions  found  in  this  case  are  epi,  that 
brought  them  to  the  water,  eis  took  them  into  the  water, 
and  ebaptisen  designates  what  Philip  did  to  the  Eunuch, 
and  ck  denotes  their  conduct  after  this  action  was  per- 


126  THE    TRIAL   OF 

formed — coming  up  out  of  the  water.  The  prepositions 
found  in  this  case  shadow  forth  immersion  alone  as  the 
baptism  performed  in  this  instance.  Are  they  ever  all 
associated  with  the  actions  of  sprinkle  or  pour'?  We 
answer,  not  in  a  solitary  case  found  in  the  Scriptures. 

In  the  history  of  these  baptisms,  we  have  many  of  the 
circumstances  minutely  detailed,  which  may  assist  us  in 
ascertaining  the  action  performed,  by  inquiring  into  the 
essential  circumstances  each  one  of  these  actions  im- 
peratively demands.  Immersion  in  water  requires  (1)  the 
subject  to  be  in  the  water.  (2)  The  application  of  the 
subject  to  the  element  by  the  act  of  immersion.  (3) 
The  coming  out  of  the  water  after  the  action  is  performed. 
These  circumstances  are  always  necessary  to  this  action, 
whenever  it  is  done. 

Let  us  now  take  pouring  and  sprinkling  as  the  action 
of  baptism,  and  inquire  what  are  the  essential  circum- 
stances always  demanded.  (1)  Water.  (2)  The  ap- 
plication of  the  element  to  the  subject  in  the  manner  the 
words  indicate.  We  may  distinguish  these  different  ac- 
tions expressed  by  immerse,  pour  and  sprinkle,  by  the 
following  essential  circumstances:  (1)  The  place  for  the 
performance  of  baptism — immerse  as  the  action  of  bap- 
tism requires  its  subjects  to  go  in  or  into  the  water — 
sprinkle  and  pour  make  no  such  requirement ;  because 
not  essential  to  their  performance.  (2)  Immerse  re- 
quires its  subjects  to  be  placed  under  the  water — sprinkle 
and  pour  make  it  essential  to  apply  the  element  to  the 
subject  and  not  the  subject  to  the  element.  (3)  Coming 
up  out  of  the  water  follows  as  essential  to  the  act  of  ha- 


MB..    rEDOBAPTIST.  127 

mersion  in  baptism — sprinkle  and  pour  as  the  actions  of 
baptism  make  no  such  demand  of  their  subjects.  Let 
these  essential  circumstances,  connected  with  these  ac- 
tions, which  claim  to  be  baptism,  be  compared  with  the 
cases  we  have  examined,  and  see  whether  the  essential 
circumstances  of  immerse,  or  pour,  or  sprinkle  are  found. 
This  comparison  will  lead  you  at  once  to  identify  the 
likeness  between  immerse  and  baptizo,  in  all  that  is  es- 
sential to  their  performance ;  and  will  show  that  there 
is  no  likeness  between  the  essential  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  action  of  baptism,  and  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  actions  of  pour  and  sprinkle.  This 
single  fact  must  exclude  the  claims  of  sprinkle  and  pour 
to  be  the  actions  commanded  in  baptism. 

The  prepositions  found  in  connection  with  the  word 
must  be  taken  in  their  popular  acceptation.  The  usual 
significations  of  en  and  eis  are  in  and  into.  To  depart 
from  these  usual  significations,  without  a  reason  found 
in  the  context,  is  warranted  by  no  reliable  authority.™ 
We  have  only  to  consult  the  English  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  to  find  the  popular  signification  of  these  pre- 
positions to  be  that  which  we  haye  given.  It  is  equally 
true  that  ek,  when  it  refers  to  a  movable  object,  has  for 
its  signification,  out  of.  We  have  already  notieed  apo. 
We  expect  to  notice  these  prepositions  again,  when  we 
close  our  address  to  the  Court  and  jury. 

Let  the  Counsel  for  the  defendant  inform  us,  what 
other  prepositions  can  be  used  in  their  literal  acceptation 
in  connection  with  immerse,  but  those  that  are  named  in 
these  baptisms.     He  never  will  undertake  to  show  that 


128  THE    TRIAL   OF 

these  prepositions  are  not  essential  to  immerse  in  Greet? 
as  well  as  in  English. 

To  give  additional  strength  (if  that  can  be  done)  to 
this  argument,  apply  this  test  to  the  word  baptize,  as 
found  in  these  baptisms:  substitute  in  its  place  immerse, 
sprinkle,  and  pour,  for  they  all  claim  to  represent  in 
English  what  baplizo  does  in  Greek.  You  will  find  in 
substituting  sprinkle  or  pour  in  place  of  baptizo,  that  it 
will  be  a  gross  violation  of  propriety  and  of  language ; 
because  the  prepositions  refuse  the  unnatural  relation. 
Lei  immerse  be  substituted  in  place  of  baptizo,  and  you 
will  faid  it  always  makes  good  sense;  because  the  pre- 
positions are  at  home  in  its  companionship.  Such  a 
trial  ought  to  show  the  impropriety  of  offering  any  other 
meaning  to  baptizo  than  to  immerse. 

DESIGN  OF    BAPTISM. 

The  Counsel  proceeded  to  unfold  the  second  argument 
pof  t poned,  which  is,  Baptism  in  its  Design,  is  a  symbolical 
i {•.presentation  of  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ.  This  symbolical  meaning  of  the  institu- 
tion is  drawn  from  the  Apostle's  allusions  to  it  in  Rom.  6, 
and  Col.  2.  Paul  in  these  passages  contemplates  the 
immersion  of  a  believer  in  water,  and  the  resurrection 
out  of  it,  as  a  commemorative  institution  of  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  We  shall  note  the  following 
pai  iculars  suggested  by  these  passages  of  Scripture  : 

1.  The  doctrine  of  abounding  grace  taught  in  the 
previous  chapter,  is  met  in  the  first  verse  of  Romans- 


MR.    rEDOBAPTIST.  J 29 

sixth,  with  a  common  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  grace  ; 
"  shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  1" 

2.  The  answer  he  gives  to  this  objection:  (1)  By 
showing  it  to  be  impossible  to  continue  in  sin,  because 
"we  that  are  dead  to  sin  (cannot)  live  any  longer  there- 
in." It  is  certainly  impossible  to  be  alive  and  dead  to 
sin  at  the  same  time.  This  death  unto  sin  can  only  be 
produced  in  us,  by  what  is  called  spiritual  baptism.  This 
baptism,  the  cause  of  this  death  to  sin,  is  clearly  distin- 
guished by  this  fact,  from  the  baptism  named  in  the 
following  verse,  it  buries  or  plants  us  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death.  It  does  not  produce  death  unto  sin,  but  de- 
clares the  facts  in  which  this  death  to  sin  finds  its  origin 
and  power.  It  will  not  do,  to  confound  the  cause  of 
death  and  the  declaratory  act — they  cannot  be  the  same. 
(2)  In  the  third  verse  he  shows  how  this  death  unto  sin 
was  declared  :  "Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death."  This  is  an  appeal  to  their  baptism,  as  a  public 
declaration  of  their  death  to  sin  by  Christ's  death.  It  is 
far  from  teaching  the  doctrine,  that  this  death  to  sin 
was  produced  in  this  baptism  ;  but  simply  a  declaration 
of  this  fact  in  water  baptism.  (3)  Paul's  conclusion 
as  found  in  the  fourth  verse  :  "  Therefore,  we  are  bu- 
ried with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that,  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
The  Apostle  clearly  makes  this  burial  and  resurrection  of 
the  believer  by  and  in  baptism,  a  symbolic  representation 
of  Christ's  death,  burial  and  resurrection,     Paul's  expo- 


130  THE   TRIAL   OF 

sition  of  this  passage,  makes  water  baptism  a  symbolic 
representation  of  these  facts.  We  find  a  confirmation 
of  this  in  the  fifth  verse  :  "  For  if  we  have  been  planted 
together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also 
in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.".  This  planting  and 
being  buried  with  Christ,  were  done  in  their  baptism  as 
a  likeness.  Immersion  alone,  as  the  action  of  baptismy 
can  be  a  likeness  and  representation  of  the  facts  designed 
to  be  illustrated  in  this  institution. 

That  we  have  not  mistaken  the  primitive  design  of 
baptism,  let  us  invite  your  attention  to  the  testimony  of 
two  classes  of  witnesses  in  proof  of  our  position. 

1.  Christian  Fathers. 

Crysostom,  Horn.  40,  on  1  Cor.  1 :     "  To  be  baptized, 
.  and  submerge,  then  to  emerge,  is  a  symbol  of  descent  to 
the  grave,  and  of  ascent  from  it." 

Council  of  Toletan  :  "  For  immersion  in  the  water  is 
like  a  descent  to  the  grave  ;  and  again  emersion  from  the 
water  (ab  aquis  emersio)  is  a  resurrection."   * 

Gregory  Nyssen  :  "  Coming  into  water,  the  kindred 
element  of  earth,  we  hide  ourselves  in  it,  as  the  Saviour 
did  in  the  earth." 

Damascenus  Orthodox,  Fides  IV,  10  ;  tc  Baptism  is  a 
type  of  the  death  of  Christ :  for  by  three  immersions 
baptism  signifies,"  &c. 

So  the  Apostolic  Constitution,  (probably  written  in 
the  fourth  century,)  Lib,  III,  c.  17:  "Immersion  de- 
notes dying  with  him,  (Christ,)  emersion  a  resurrection 
with  him." 


MR.    PEDOBAFTIST.  131 

These  Fathers'  testimony  is  sufficient  to  show  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  early  churches,  concerning  the  de- 
sign of  baptism. 

2.  Pedobaptist  Witnesses. 

Calvin :  "  Are  you  ignorant  1  The  Apostle  proves  that 
Christ  destroys  sin  in  his  people  from  the  effects  of  bap- 
tism, by  which  we  are  initiated  into  the  faith  of  the 
Messiah.  For  we,  without  controversy,  put  on  Christ  in 
baptism,  and  are  baptized  on  this  condition,  that  we  may 
be  one  with  him.  Paul  thus  assumes  another  principle, 
that  we  may  then  truly  grow  into  the  body  of  Christ 
when  his  death  produces  its  own  fruit  in  us  who  believe. 
Nay,  he  teaches  us  that  this  fellowship  of  his  death  is 
chiefly  to  be  regarded  in  baptism,  for  washing  alone  is 
not  proposed  in  this  initiatory  ordinance,  but  mortifica- 
tion, and  the  death  of  the  old  man  :  whence  the  efficacy 
of  Christ's  death." 

Luther  :  "  That  the  minister  dippeth  a  child  into  the 
water,  signifieth  death  ;  that  he  again  bringeth  him  out 
of  it,  signifieth  life.  So  Paul  explains  it,  Eom.  6.  Being 
moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  that  are  to  be 
baptized,  to  be  entirely  immersed,  as  the  word  imports 
and  the  mystery  signifies."! 

Bp.  Hall  :  «  Ye  are,  in  baptism,  buried  together  with 
Christ,  in  respect  of  the  mortification  of  your  sins,  re- 
presented by  lying  under  the  water  j  and  in  the  same 
baptism,  ye  rise  up  with  him  in  newness  of  life,  repre- 
sented by  your  rising  up  out  of  the  water  again." — Hard 
Texts,  on  Col.  2, 


132  THE    TRIAL    Of 

Locke :  "  We  did  own  some  kind  of  death  by  being 
buried  under  the  water,  which,  being  buried  with  him,  i.  e. 
in  conformity  to  his  burial,  as  a  confession  of  our  being 
dead,  was  to  signify,  that  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead  into  a  glorious  life  with  his  Father,  even  so  we, 
being  raised  from  our  typical  death  and  burial  in  baptism, 
should  lead  a  new  sort  of  life." 

Wall :  "  As  to  the  manner  of  baptism  then  generally 
used,  the  texts  produced  by  every  one  that  speaks  of  these 
matters,  John  3 :  23  ;  Mark  1:5;  Acts  8  :  38,  are  un- 
deniable proofs  that  the  baptized  person  went  ordinarily 
into  the  water,  and  sometimes  the  Baptist  too.  We  should 
not  know  from  these  accounts,  whether  the  whole  body 
of  the  baptized  was  put  under  water,  head  and  all,  were 
it  not  for  two  later  proofs  which  seem  to  me  to  put  it  out 
of  the  question  :  one,  that  St.  Paul  does  twice  in  an  allu- 
sive way  of  speaking,  calls  baptism  a  burial ;  the  other, 
the  customs  of  the  Christians,  in  the  near  succeeding 
times,  which,  being  more  largely  and  particularly  de- 
livered in  books,  is  known  to  have  been  generally,  or 
ordinarily,  a  total  immersion." 

Archbishop  Tillotson  :  "  Anciently,  those  who  were 
baptized,  were  immersed  and  buried  in  the  water,  to 
represent  their  death  to  sin ;  and  then  did  rise  up  out 
of  the  water,  to  signify  their  entrance  upon  a  new  life. 
And  to  these  customs  the  Apostle  alludes,  Rom.  6  :  2-5." 

Archbishop  Seeker  :  "  Burying,  as  it  were,  the  person 
baptized  in  the  water,  and  raising  him  out  again,  with- 
out question,  was  anciently  the  more  usual  method  :  on 


31K-.   PEDOBAPTIST.  133 

account  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  baptism  as  repre- 
senting both  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ." 

Samuel  Clark:  "In  primitive  times,  the  manner  of 
baptizing  was  by  immersion,  or  dipping  the  whole  body 
into  the  water.  And  this  manner  of  doing  it  was  a  very 
significant  emblem  of  the  dying  and  rising  again,  referred 
to  by  Paul,  in  the  above  mentioned  similitude." 

Doddridge  :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism.  It  seems 
the  part  of  candor  to  confess,  that  here  is  an  allusion  to 
the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion." 

John  Wesley  :  "  Buried  with  him — alluding  to  the 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immerson." — Notes  on 
Rom.  6. 

Rosenmuller,  Koppe  and  Bloomfield,  all  hold  the  same 
strong  language  on  this  subject.  We  will  quote  only  the 
last,  as  he  includes  the  others.  In  his  Critical  Digest  on 
.Rom.  6  :  4,  he  says  :  "  There  is  here  plainly  a  reference 
to  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  ;  and  I 
agree  with  Koppe  and  Rosenmuller,  that  there  is  reason 
to  regret  it  should  have  been  abandoned  in  most  Chris- 
tian churches,  especially  as  it  has  so  evidently  a  reference 
to  the  mystic  sense  of  baptism." 

The  Counsel  said,  you  have  the  testimonies  of  Drs. 
Hill  and  Clark,  on  the  design  of  baptism,  in  their  ex- 
amination, in  chief,  by  the  Counsel  for  the  defendant. 
We  could  add  to  the  above  witnesses  a  host  of  others, 
of  equal  learning  and  authority  among  the  friends  of  the 
Prisoner.  Let  us  close  this  branch  of  our  subject  with 
one  more  witness. 

Dr.  Chalmers  :     "  Jesus  Christ    by  death  underwent 


134.-  THE    TKJAL    OF 

this  sort  of  baptism — even  immersion  under  the  surface 
of  the  ground,  whence  He  soon  emerged  again  by  His 
resurrection.  We  by  being  baptized  into  His  death,  are 
conceived  to  have  made  a  similar  translation.  In  the  act 
of  descending  under  the  water  of  baptism  to  have  re- 
signed an  old  life,  and  in  the  act  of  ascending  to  emerge 
into  a  second  or  a  new  life — along  the  course  of  which 
it  is  our  part  to  maintain  a  strenuous  avoidance  of  that 
sin." — Chalmers's  Led.  on  Rom.  6. 

We  shall  now  close  this  argument  for  the  present,  and 
wait  until  the  Counsel  shall  take  his  position  on  the  de- 
sign of  baptism  as  taught  by  the  Apostle  in  Rom.  6. 

We  now  have  our  whole  evidence  before  him,  in  proof 
of  the  allegation  in  the  indictment  against  the  Prisoner. 
We  shall  listen  patiently  and  earnestly  to  his  closing 
address  in  defence  of  the  defendant's  conduct,  and  in 
reply  to  our  various  classes  of  witnesses,  whom  we  have 
offered  to  prove  the  truthfulness  of  the  charge  preferred 
against  Mr.  Pedobaptist. 

The  Court  said,  we  are  prepared  to  hear  the  Counsel 
for  the  Prisoner  close  his  defence.  We  assure  him,  that 
an  opportunity  will  be  offered  to  him,  to  reply  to  any 
new  matter,  which  may  be  introduced  by  the  Counsel  of 
the  Commonwealth  in  his  closing  address. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner  then  arose,  and  com- 
menced his  closing  address.  By  the  permission  of  the 
Court,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  i  arise  (he  said)  to  ad- 
dress you  for  the  last  time  on  the  momentous  question 
which  you  are  called  upon  to  decide.  To  you  the  Pri- 
soner can  only  appeal  for  justice,  and  the  protection  it 


ME.    PBDOBAFfiS'f.  135 

always  promises  to  the  innocent,  in  the  hour  of  calumny 
and  persecution.  1  know  we  shall  not  look  in  vain.  The 
question  you  are  sworn  to  try  by  the  evidence,  becomes 
one  of  infinite  moment  to  us  all,  by  the  circumstances 
that  are  now  thrown  around  it.  These  circumstances 
seek  to  fasten  on  my  client,  one  of  the  darkest  crimes 
known  to  our  laws. 

You  are  aware  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Common- 
wealth, to  make  out  the  charge  in  the  indictment,  to  your 
minds,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  before  the  Counsel 
can  with  any  show  of  reason  or  law,  demand  at  your 
hands  a  verdict  of  guilty.  That  he  has  done  so,  I  have 
no  apprehension  that  the  evidence  offered,  will  warrant 
this  conclusion  by  you,  or  myself.  With  confidence  in 
the  strength  of  our  position,  and  convinced  of  the  imbe- 
cility of  the  prosecution,  we  approach  the  examination 
of  the  evidence  offered,  in  support  of  the  charge  preferred 
against  my  client,  with  hopeful  assurance,  of  showing 
its  entire  insufficiency  to  fasten  the  crime  charged  in  the 
indictment,  upon  the  Prisoner. 

PRINCIPLES    OF    LAW   EXAMINED. 

Let  us  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  some  of  his 
"  incontestable  facts,"  as  he  chooses  to  denominate  them, 
in  his  opening  address  to  the  Court.  We  wish  to  show 
in  our  review  of  them,  that  they  are  not  as  incontestable 
as  he  woultl  have  you  believe.  To  those  that  have  a 
bearing  on  this  case  we  will  now  call  your  attention. 

The  first  fact  is,  "  that  the  word  used  in  the  Constitution 
of  this  Commonwealth,  to  designate  the  act  in  Christian 


136  THE    TRIAL    OF 

Baptism,  is'  not  bapto,  but  its  derivative  baptizo."  We 
cordially  admit  that  baptizo  only  is  used  when  this  ordi- 
nance is  named.  With  this  fact  clearly  before  us,  we 
must  also  remember  in  this  connection  another  fact  of 
equal  moment,  that  is,  that  bapto  is  admitted  to  be  the 
root  of  baptizo,  and  that  this  root  does  signify  dye  as  well 
as  dip  in  any  manner.  We  now  will  read  from  Mr.  Car- 
son, a  leading  friend  of  Mr.  Baptist  ;  he  says,  p.  46, 
"bapto  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling,  as  properly  as  by 
dipping,  though  originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter;" 
again,  "they  (the  examples)  relate  to  dyeing  wholly 
without  reference  to  dipping;  nay,  some  of  them  with 
an  expressed  reference  to  another  mode."  According  to 
this  testimony,  sustained  by  examples,  the  word  denotes 
a  thing  done,  and  this  by  any  manner.  It  is  reasonable 
to  expect  that  its  derivative  would  not  be  more  definite 
in  its  signification  than  the  parent  stock.  The  testimony 
we  have  offered,  clearly  establishes  the  fact,  that  bap- 
tism as  a  Christian  ordinance,  contemplates  a  thing 
done — the  manner  is  a  subject  of  indifference. 

His  second  fact  is,  "that  baptism  is  a  Positive  Insti- 
tution, and  not  a  Moral  one."  Who  disputes  this  1  We 
do  not.  As  an  ordinance  of  Christianity,  it  requires  cer- 
tain essential  prerequisites.  (1)  A  suitable  subject. — 
(2)  A  lawful  administrator.  (3)  The  element  used — 
water.  (4)  To  be  done  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 
These  are  essential  to  the  ordinance.  These  are  all  em- 
braced in  this  Positive  Institution.  For  these  Mr.  Pedo- 
baptist  contends  as  zealously  as  Mr.  Baptist,  and  still 
he  stands  before  you  charged  with  the  crime  of  treason ! 


Alii.    PEDOUAPTIfiSr.  137 

In  the  ligiit  of  this  single  consideration,  it  is  impossible 
to  convict  him. 

His  third  fact  is,  "  that  the  meaning  of  the  words  used 
in  positive  duties,  is  the  only  rule  of  action."  This  is 
our  principle  as  well  as  his,  the  difference  between  us  is 
concerning  the  meaning  of  the  words  employed  in  this 
ordinance.  Our  position  is,  they  contemplate  a  thing 
done,  and  not  its  manner.  This  is  (we  think)  fully  sus- 
tained by  the  testimony  of  many  of  his  witnesses,  in 
connection  with  ours.  Their  examination  will  take  place 
at  the  proper  time. 

We  pass  over  his  fourth  fact,  because  it  is  included  in 
the  third,  and  notice  his  fifth,  which  is,  that  the  "  figura- 
tive application  of  a  word  enters  not  within  the  pale  of 
the  interpretation  of  positive  precepts."  This  is  only 
sustained  by  authorities,  when  the  literal  meaning  is 
current  among  the  speakers  and  writers  of  the  language. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  figurative  meaning  of  a  word  in 
the  course  of  time  becomes  the  literal  meaning.  This 
can  be  demonstrated  by  the  history  of  many  words. — 
Because  language,  like  everything  else,  is  mutable  : 
therefore,  this  transition  is  constantly  going  on.  This 
fact  is  confirmed  by  the  most  reliable  authorities. 

His  sixth  fact  is,  that  "  all  intelligent  legislation  con- 
templates a  specific  object  in  its  enactments."  This  is 
generally  true  ;  but  it  is  not  well  founded  to  say  the 
manner  of  executing  these  objects  is  commanded.  The 
manner  is  seldom  command.  When  it  is  not,  all  are 
left  to  adopt  that  manner  of  performance  which  they 
think  best.     This  is  our  view  of  baptism,  and  it  is  sup- 


138  THE    TRIAL    OF 

ported  by  other  divine  commands.  (1)  In  the  Mosaic  in- 
stitute, where  it  imperatively  requires  persons  to  bathe  or 
wash  themselves — the  word  used  is  generic — any  manner 
of  performance  was  a  fulfilment  of  this  law.  The  same 
principle  is  elucidated  by  the  command  of  the  Saviour,  as 
found  in  John  9  :  "  Go  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam."  No 
manner  of  observance  is  required  in  these  commands. — 
These  instances  are  intended  to  make  good  the  fact,  that 
divine  legislation  does  sometimes,  at  least,  require  a  thing 
to  be  done,  without  requiring  how  it  shall  be  done. 

In  this  connection,  the  Court  should  take  into  consid- 
eration the  facts  we  laid  down  in  our  opening  address. 
They  are  the  following:  (1)  Baptizo  is  a  Greek  word. 
(2)  That  this  word  is  used  by  the  Greeks  only  in  re- 
ference to  common  occurrences  in  life,  and  not  to  their 
religious  washings.  (3)  As  used  by  the  Jews,  it  had 
respect  to  their  religious  washings.  (4)  That  it  is  a 
common  occurrence  for  words  to  depart  from  their  pri- 
mary meaning  and  assume  a  new  import.  (5)  The  ac- 
ceptation of  baptizo  by  Christ  and  the  apostles,  is  the 
only  tribunal  to  determine  what  was  intended  to  be  done 
by  this  word.  (6)  The  manner  of  baptizing  is  not 
commanded.  These  principles  of  the  law  are  sustained 
by  the  testimony.  It  becomes  your  duty  to  apply  them 
in  your  instruction  to  the  jury.  Their  application  will 
clearly  justify  Mr.  Pedobaptist,  and  prove  Mr.  Baptist 
to  be  a  restless  disturber  of  the  peace  of  society. 

The  Counsel  said,  we  will  now  proceed  to  the  exami- 
nation of  the  testimony  offered  by  the  prosecution,  to 
sustain  the  charge  in  the  indictment.     The  testimony 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  139 

necessary  to  determine  this  question  in  your  minds, 
must  prove,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  this  proposition  : 
"  That  the  Lawgiver,  by  the  use  of  the  word  baptizo,  in 
the  Constitution,  designed  to  show  that  only  the  immer- 
sion in  water  of  every  lawful  subject  was  valid  baptism." 
Does  the  testimony  place  the  truthfulness  of  this  propo- 
sition beyond  a  doubt  1  It  must  do  this,  or  you  are  bound 
by  your  oaths  to  acquit  the  Prisoner.  If  we  can  show 
that  the  testimony  will  not  sustain  this  essential  feature 
of  the  prosecution,  their  whole  defence  must  fail.  If  I 
understand  the  character  and  bearing  of  the  testimony 
on  the  issue  joined  by  the  parties,  we  shall  be  able  fully 
to  satisfy  your  minds  of  its  entire  insufficiency,  to  sup- 
port the  only  thing  on  which  the  Commonwealth  can 
rely.  This  is  the  only  duty  that  law  and  evidence  re- 
quire of  us,  and  we  shall  now  proceed  to  its  perform- 
ance, with  your  indulgence. 

EXAMINATION    OF     CLASSICAL    TESTIMONY. 

The  first  witness  called  upon  the  stand  was  Mr.  Clas- 
sic. His  testimony  was  entirely  confined  to  the  classi- 
cal acceptation  of  the  word  baptizo.  From  the  authori- 
ties he  read  as  his  testimony,  we  make  the  following 
classification  of  the  use  of  this  word:  Baptizo  signifies 
sink,  thirteen  times — plunge,  seven  times — immerse,  par- 
tially, three  times — smear,  once— overwhelmed,  four  times — 
total  immersion,  once — used  twice  by  Hippocrates  indefi- 
nitely. From  this  enumeration  of  the  use  of  baptizo  in 
his  testimony,  you  can  clearly  observe  a  variety  of  mean- 
ing in  its  classical  acceptation.     This  variety  of  mean- 


140  THE  .TRIAL   Of 

ing  destroys  the  entire  object  of  his  testimony,  and 
makes  void  the  proscriptive  ground  on  which  the  prose- 
cution entirely  depends  to  convict  the  Prisoner. 

You  will  find  in  looking  over  his  testimony  in  its  com- 
pleteness, we  have  fairly  made  out  our  classification  of 
the  applications  of  this  word  from  his  authorities.  In 
the  light  of  this  representation  by  his  own  witnesses  of 
the  use  of  this  word,  what  now  becomes  of  the  oneness 
of  meaning  so  essential  to  Mr.  Baptist's  accusation,  pre- 
ferred against  Mr.  Pedobaptist 1  Without  this  oneness 
of  literal  meaning  throughout  the  whole  testimony,  the 
prosecution  must  fail. 

We  must  remember,  in  testing  the  weight  of  this  tes- 
timony, to  apply  a  fact  we  laid  down  in  our  opening 
address,  in  connection  with  what  we  have  already  shown 
of  its  character,  viz  :  That  the  use  of  baptizo  by  the 
Greek  classics  is  not  the  proper  tribunal  to  determine  its 
sacred  acceptation.  The  reason  of  this  is  made  obvious 
by  the  testimony,  and  is  this,  that  the  Greeks  use  baptizo 
only  in  reference  to  things  in  common  life,  the  Jews  to 
their  religious  washings.  The  counsel  on  the  other  side 
will  not  dare  to  claim  for  this  word  in  its  sacred  use, 
more  than  he  claims  for  it  in  the  classical.  If  so,  the 
classic  use  does  not  sustain  the  charge  announced  in  the 
indictment,  because  the  classics  give  a  variety  of  mean- 
ing to  this  word. 

TESTIMONY  OF    JOSEPHUS. 

The  next  witness  is  Mr.  Josephus,  a  Jew,  who  also 
wrct?  c'assic  Gie;k,  a;  is  evident  from  the  single  fact, 


ME.    PEDOBAPTIST.  141 

that  he  uses  baptizo  in  the  same  way  as  the  Greek  au- 
thors. We  sura  up  his  applications  of  this  word  in  the 
following  manner — sink,  three  times — immerse,  once — ■ 
plunge,  twice— overwhelmed,  twice.  We  have  in  his  testi- 
mony the  same  variety  of  meanings  attached  to  baptizo 
which  we  found  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Classic.  Both 
of  these  witnesses  depose  to  the  same  thing,  and  yet  they 
are  far  from  making  good  the  cause  of  the  Common- 
wealth in  that  essential  fact,  so  vital  to  the  maintenance 
of  this  prosecution,  and  which  law  and  evidence  impera- 
tively demand  at  its  hand — a  uniformity  of  meaning. 

TESTIMONY    OF    ME.    LEXICON. 

The  next  witness  examined  .was  Mr.  Lexicon,  who 
professes  to  give  us  authoritatively  the  meanings  of 
Greek  words.  His  testimony  on  the  meaning  of  this 
word  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  enumeration : 
baptizo,  to  immerse ;  to  wash ;  to  bathe ;  to  overwhelm  ; 
to  cleanse.  We  find  also  in  his  testimony,  the  same  va- 
riety of  meaning  given  to  the  word  in  dispute.  The 
reason  of  the  selection  of  this  word  by  the  Lawgiver, 
may  be  found  in  this  variety  of  its  meaning,  and  its 
adaptedness  to  designate  a  thing  to  be  done  in  all  coun- 
tries and  climates.  It  wisely  leaves  the  manner  of  per- 
formance to  the  judgment  of  all  the  subjects  of  this 
ordinance. 

His  testimony  is  a  confirmation  of  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  already  reviewed.  They  all  strike  a  death 
blow  at  the  doctrine  of  the  oneness  of  the  meaning  of 
baptizo,  and  sustain  our  position-  of  a  variety  of  meaning. 


142  THE   TRIAL   OF 

This  position  clearly  shows  that  baptism  is  a  thing  that 
may  be  done  by  a  variety  of  manners;  because  the  word 
;in  the  light  of  this  exhibition  represents  no  specific  mode 
of  performance. 

It  should  always  be  remembered  by  you,  during  this 
whole  trial,  that  the  prosecution  is  bound  by  law  to 
prove  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  baptizo  has  but  one 
literal  meaning,  and  no  more,  and  that  that  meaning  was 
immerse,  at  the  time  when  Christ  commanded  baptism 
as  an  ordinance.  The  Commonwealth  has  certainly 
taken  a  strange  way  to  prove  this  essential  proposition, 
necessary  to  sustain  the  allegation  found  in  the  indict- 
ment. Its  witnesses  prove  too  much,  by  testifying  to  a 
variety  of  meaning  belonging  to  this  word. 

MR.    TRANSLATOR'S   TESTIMONY. 

* 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Translator  comes  next  in  order. 
We  classify  his  testimony  on  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  in 
the  following  order :  dipped,  once ;  wash,  seven  times ; 
affrighted,  once.  In  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Seventy, 
we  find  baptizo  used  in  four  of  these  cases,  in  two  of 
which  the  English  translation  has  wash,  and  in  the  other 
two,  dip  and  affrighted.  We  have  also  in  this  testimony 
wash  used  seven  times  in  place  of  baptizo,  in  the  Greek, 
and  dip  used  only  once.  This  forcibly  illustrates  his 
view  of  the  meaning  of  baptizo.  It  also  proves  that  im- 
merse is  far  from  being  its  invariable  meaning.  Wash 
here  might  with  more  show  of  reason  claim  an  absolute 
right  of  possession  from  its  number.  According  to  the 
view  of  the  subject,  as  we  are  presenting  it,  it  would  be 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  143 

a  good  substitute  in  English,  as  denoting  a  thing  to  be 
done  in  a  variety  of  ways.  This  is  our  defence,  and  it 
is  sustained  by  his  testimony. 

1  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  say  any  thing  on  that 
part  of  his  testimony,  that  relates  to  the  various  trans- 
lations of  the  Scriptures.  The  translations  have  all  been 
made  on  this  principle — the  mode  of  baptism  adopted 
by  the  people  influenced  the  translation.  The  matter  of 
mode  being  left  free  in  the  original  law,  for  all  to 
determine,  it  is  no  marvel  that  a  variety  of  ways  exists 
in  the  manner  of  baptizing. 

The  whole  controversy  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
meaning  of  the  original  law.  This  is  the  point  to  which 
your  attention  has,  and  will  be  called  by  us.  Our  ex- 
amination thus  far,  of  the  principal  witnesses  of  the 
Commonwealth,  proves  fully  our  position. 

PEDOBAPTIST    WITNESSES    REVIEWED. 

The  next  witnesses  called  upon  the  stand  by  the  Com- 
monwealth, were  (as  the  Counsel  called  them)  learned 
Pedobaptists.  The  first  inquiry  would  be  to  ascertain, 
what  makes  a  person  a  Pedobaptist.  The  answer  is, 
"  one  who  believes  in  the  baptism  of  infants."  He  may 
believe,  like  the  Greek  church,  that  a  trine  immersion  is 
baptism,  or  believe  with  others,  that  other  modes  of  bap- 
tism are  equally  valid.  This  distinction,  founded  upon 
facts,  will  help  us  to  discriminate  between  these  wit- 
nesses, and  the  weight  that  ought  to  be  given  to  their  testi- 
mony. To  the  latter  class  of  these  witnesses,  we  shall 
at  present  confine  our  attention, 


l-i4  THE    TRIAL    OF 

It  will  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  scrutinize  their  indi- 
vidual testimony  ;  for  they  are  all  founded  on  a  common 
principle — that  no  particular  mode  of  baptism  was  com- 
manded. Their  action  on  this  subject  is  the  true  expo- 
nantof  their  sentiments.  Their  action  also  incontestably 
demonstrates  the  position  of  the  Prisoner.  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, and  all  the  others  of  this  class  called  to  the  witness 
stand,  held  and  practised  other  modes  of  baptism  besides 
immersion,  and  they  did  so  with  the  conviction,  that 
the  modes  they  adopted  were  as  Scriptural  as  immersion. 

Had  they  held  the  exclusive  position  found  in  the  in- 
dictment, it  would  have  compelled  them  to  renounce 
their  mode  of  baptism  as  contrary  to  the  constitutional 
law.  This  they  never  did,  but  all  who  turn  Baptists  are 
found  doing  so.  The  position  of  these  witnesses,  as 
shown  in  their  practice,  clearly  proves  that  in  their  minds 
baptism  as  an  ordinance,  contemplates  a  thing  to  be  clone 
in  all  the  ways  practised  by  all  Evangelical  Christians. 
The  Counsel  never  can  prove  from  these  witnesses  that 
immersion  is  essential  to  Christian  Baptism.  Unless 
they  do  prove  this  to  be  a  fact,  their  testimony  is  of  no 
benefit  to  the  prosecution,  but  must  work  its  entire  de- 
feat. For  it  is  a  rule  in  law,  that  when  a  witness  is 
called  to  testify  for  a  party,  the  party  is  bound  to  receive 
his  whole  testimony.  This  must  be  done  in  this  case, 
and  1  know  the  Court  will  so  instruct  you. 

The  concessions  of  these  Pedobaptists  will,  I  expect, 
be  paraded  before  you  by  the  Counsel  on  the  other  side, 
as  sufficient  proof  of  the  charge  in  the  indictment.  Let 
him  reconcile  their  practice  on  this  subject,  with  the  use 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  I  Lj 

he  wishes  to  make  of  their  testimony !     This  he  can 
never  do,  and  I  judge  he  will  not  make  the  trial. 

Have  we  not  clearly  proven,  by  men  of  undoubted 
character  and  learning,  that  baptism,  as  a  Christian  ordi- 
nance, contemplates  a  variety  of  modes  1  The  adoption 
of  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immersing,  as  a  mode  of  per- 
formance, is  a  matter  of  indifference,  for  the  thing  cm 
be  done  in  these  various  ways.  On  this  important  point, 
the  witnesses  on  both  sides  agree.  This  is  all  we  plead 
for,  to  justify  the  conduct  of  the  Prisoner. 

We  have  a  full  solution  of  their  conduct  and  testimony, 
in  the  review  we  have  made  of  the  former  witnesses,  for 
they  teach  that  baptism  can  be  performed  in  a  variety  of 
ways.  Under  the  influence  of  this  conviction  of  the  de- 
sign of  the  Lawgiver  in  commanding  baptism,  these  de- 
voted and  loyal  men  labored  for  the  advancement  of 
Christianity  as  man's  birthright.  Shall  their  labor  and 
sacrifice  be  branded  with  burning  infamy,  by  a  verdict  of 
guilty  at  your  hands,  and  that,  too,  by  a  perversion  of 
their  solemn  testimony  1  The  annals  of  history  would 
be  consulted  in  vain  to  find  a  parallel  for  your  judgment, 
under  the  same  circumstances. 

But  to  sum  up  the  whole  testimony  of  this  class  of 
witnesses,  it  proves  this  fact  beyond  a  doubt,  that  they 
did  not  believe  that  baptizo,  in  the  Christian  ordinance, 
signified  only  the  action  of  immersion,  in  all  times  and 
under  all  circumstances.  Unless  their  testimony  clearly 
proves  this  fact,  it  will  not  be  of  any  use  to  the  prosecu- 
tion. For  on  the  proof  of  this  fact  hinges  the  whole 
7 


146  THE    TRIAL    OF 

controversy  between  the  parties.     To  use  their  testimony 
for  this  purpose  is  impossible. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  can  you  say  by  a  verdict  of 
guilty,  that  all  these  men  were  traitors  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  our  common  country,  and  for  all  coming  time 
brand  them  as  such  \  How  could  you  reconcile  this 
verdict  with  the  good  character  these  men  have  always 
sustained  for  loyalty  to  the  government  1  Their  under- 
standing of  its  institutions  is  more  reliable  than  that 
of  Mr.  Baptist,  and  his  friends,  because  of  their  num- 
ber, learning  and  official  positions  in  this  Commonwealth, 
as  the  expounders  of  its  laws  for  centuries. 

TESTIMONY    OF   FRIENDS   REVIEWED. 

The  next  witnesses  offered  by  the  Commonwealth  are 
the  Friends  or  Quakers.  What  right  have  they  to  appear 
before  this  Court  and  jury  in  this  case,  when  they,  in 
sentiment  and  practice,  deny  the  constitutional  obliga- 
tion of  water  baptism  1.  This  position  of  theirs  is  a 
sufficient  bar  to  their  competency  as  witnesses,  concern- 
ing a  duty  which  they  entirely  ignore.  Again,  their 
want  of  learning  and  of  sympathy  for  water  baptism,  is  a 
sufficient  reason  why  their  testimony  should  have  no 
bearing  on  this  controversy. 

Their  evidence  amounts  to  a  dogmatic  assertion  of 
the  meaning  of  baptism.  They  give  no  authorities  on 
which  these  assertions  are  founded,  for  it  is  impossible 
for  them  to  give  any  other  authorities  than  those  we 
have    already   scrutinized.      These,    we    have   already 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  141 

shown,  fail  to  make  out  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth. 
Can  we  rely  on  their  mere  assertions  without  authori- 
ties, and  against  authorities,  and  this,  too,  in  the  light  of 
their  position  in  opposition  to  a  plain  constitutional  law  1 
For  these  reasons  Ave  have  not  made  a  classification  of 
the  application  they  give  to  baptizo,  and  we  will  dismiss 
them  without  further  remarks. 

The  Counsel  for  the  defendant  next  proceeded  to  the 
examination  of  the  sacred  use  of  baptizo,  and  the  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  performance  of  the  ordinance, 
as  given  in  the  New  Testament. 

He  said  he  would  read  an  argument  from  Professor 
Schmucker's  Popular  Theology,  (p.  262-8,)  and  adopt  it  as 
his  own  on  this  occasion.  The  reason  why  he  would 
give  Prof.  S.'s  view  of  this  argument  was,  because  it  was 
a  more  convincing  representation  of  it  than  he  himself 
would  be  able  to  give.  He  said  he  would  now  commence 
to  read,  and  hoped  the  Court  and  jury  would  give  the 
argument  their  particular  attention  :  "  But  the  question 
is,  whether  immersion  is  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
consequently  is  one  essential  part  of  baptism,  so  that 
without  it  no  baptism  is  valid,  though  it  contain  every 
other  requisite.  On  this  subject  the  Lutheran  church 
has  always  agreed  with  the  great  majority  of  Christian 
denominations,  in  maintaining  the  negative,  and  in  re- 
garding the  quantity  of  water  employed  in  baptism,  as 
well  as  the  mode  of  exhibiting  it,  not  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  ordinance.  The  argument  may  be  briefly 
stated  thus : 

K  JVo  circumstance  can  be  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a 


148  THE    TRIAL   OF 

divine  ordinance,  excepting  those  which  God  has  com- 
manded in  his  word : 

"But  God  has  not  commanded  immersion  in  his  word; 
therefore,  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism. 

"  The  first  of  these  propositions  is  admitted  by  all  Pro- 
testant denominations,  and  cannot  be  denied  by  any  one 
who  does  not  hold  the  following  absurd  positions : 
(a)  That  the  word  of  God  is  an  insufficient  guide  for 
man ;  (b)  that  uninspired  men  may  add  to  this  revela- 
tion, and  (c)  that  whatever  any  uninspired  men  may 
choose  to  add,  all  other  men  must  subsequently  observe, 
on  pain  of  eternal  perdition.  The  second  proposition, 
therefore,  alone  needs  investigation ;  namely,  '  that  God 
has  not  commanded  immersion  in  his  word.' 

"  The  friends  of  immersion  do  not  contend,  that  there 
is  any  specific  command ;  but  allege,  that  the  word  'bap- 
tize' itself  does,  in  the  New  Testament  Greek,  neces- 
sarily imply  immersion.  The  fallacy  of  this  opinion  is' 
evident  from  all  the  passages,  in  which  the  word  is  used 
in  such  a  way  as  to  throw  light  on  its  precise  meaning. 

"  (a)  Heb.  9  :  10.  «  Which  (the  Jewish)  service  stood 
(consisted)  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms 
(baptismois.')  A  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  where 
these  baptisms,  or,  as  our  English  version  renders  it, 
washings,  are  described,  proves  that  they  were  performed 
by  sprinkling  and  pouring  5  but  it  is  not  mentioned  in  a 
single  case,  that  the  object  must  be  put  under  the 
water. 

"(b)  Mark  7:  3.    <And  when  they  (the  Pharisees) 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  149 

come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  (baptize  them- 
selves) they  eat  not.'  Now  it  certainly  was  the  custom 
of  the  Jews  to  wash  their  hands  before  eating,  but  what 
author  ever  contended  that  they  entirely  immersed  them- 
selves in  water,  before  every  meal  1  Yet,  this  application 
of  water,  to  a  very  small  part  of  the  body,  is  called  bap- 
tism, (c)  Again :  '  and  many  other  things  there  be, 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  baptisms  of  cups 
and  pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables,  (beds,  couches.')  The 
cups  and  pots  might  indeed  be  immersed  in  water,  yet 
of  this  we  are  not  certain.  But  will  it  be  contended, 
that  the  beds  or  couches  were  carried  to  some  often  dis- 
tant river,  to  be  immersed  1  or  that  every  Pharisee  had 
a  cistern  provided  in  his  yard,  for  this  purpose  1  Luke 
11 :  38.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  many  of  the  purifi- 
cations, termed  baptisms  in  the  New  Testament,  were 
certainly  performed  by  sprinkling,  and  (as  in  the  case  of 
the  tables)  by  pouring ;  whilst  it  is  not  certain  that  they 
were  performed  by  immersion  in  a  single  case.  Hence 
there  is  much  more  Scripture  authority  for  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  than  for  immersion. 

"2.  Nor  do  the  circumstances,  related  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  attendant  on  baptism,  prove  the  practice  of  im- 
mersion. 

"  (a)  The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  converts  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  was  performed  at  Jerusalem,  where 
there  was  no  river  or  creek ;  at  a  time,  when  it  was 
summer  in  Judea,  (close  of  March,)  and  rains  were  scarce, 
and  the  brook  Kedron  dry,  and  nothing  remained  near 
Jerusalem  but  the  single  pool  of  Siloam.     How  could 


150  THE    TRIAL    OF 

the  apostles,  under  these  circumstances,  have  found 
places  to  baptize  such  a  multitude  in  one  day  by  immer- 
sion 1  Suppose,  that  the  apostles  went  into  the  pool  al- 
ternately, relieving  each  other,  and  one  was  constantly 
engaged  in  the  act  of  baptizing,  it  is  utterly  impossible 
that  the  three  thousand  could  have  been  baptized,  in  a 
day.  But  a  large  part  of  the  day  had  elapsed  before  the 
baptisms  began:  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  their 
preaching  to  persons  from  different  countries,  in  their 
own  languages ;  the  accusations  against  the  apostles  ; 
Peter's  defence  from  the  Scriptures;  the  convictions  of 
multitudes,  and  their  inquiries  what  they  must  do  to  be 
saved — all  these  things  had  occurred  beforehand,  so  that, 
at  earliest,  the  work  of  baptizing  did  not  begin  before 
noon.  Admitting  that  the  six  remaining  hours  of  the 
day  were  all  devoted  to  this  business,  and  that  by  fre- 
quent changes  one  of  the  twelve  was  incessantly  in  the 
act  of  baptizing,  he  would  have  to  baptize  five  hundred 
persons  in  one  hour,  or  eight  every  minute  !  Or  suppose, 
what  is  indeed  very  improbable,  and  contrary  to  the  tenor 
of  the  narrative  of  Luke,  that  when  the  work  of  bap- 
tizing had  been  resolved  on,  the  apostles  divided  the 
whole  multitude  into  twelve  equal  parts,  and  each  one, 
at  the  head  of  his  division,  marching  straightway  in 
quest  of  some  bath-house  or  cistern,  all  spent  the  re- 
mainder of  the  day  laboriously  engaged  in  this  work  ; 
would  it  not  still  be  impossible  that  they  should  have 
baptized  that  number  1  An  hour  at  least  would  be  con- 
sumed in  dividing  the  multitude  and  inquiring  for  the 
baths,  in  repairing  to  them  and  placing  them  in  order. 


MR.    PED0BAPT1ST.  151 

Can  it  be  believed,  that  each  apostle  could  have  baptized 
two  hundred  and  fifty  in  five  hours,  averaging  yery  nearly 
one  for  every  minute  of  the  whole  time,  even  if  they 
were  all  standing  naked,  ready  to  leap  in  as  soon  as  the 
apostle  could  lay  his  hands  on  them  1  But  surely  it  will 
not  be  contended  that  all  these  persons  of  different  sexes 
bathed  naked  in  each  other's  presence.  Yet  where  could 
the  three  thousand  suddenly  have  found  bathing  dresses'? 
And  to  bathe,  with  their  ordinary  clothes  on  would  have 
been  certain  disease  or  death  to  multitudes  of  them." — 
(At  this  part  of  the  argument,  there  Were  symptoms  of 
applause  by  the  multitude  present,  which,  however,  was 
checked  by  the  Court.  The  counsel  commenced  again 
to  read — )  "  Is  it  not  infinitely  more  reasonable  to  be- 
lieve, that  the  multitudes  remained  together,  and  after 
having  been  baptized  by  sprinkling  according  to  the 
Jewish  custom,  (Num.  19:  18,)  which  could  have  been 
done  in  less  than  an  hour,  continued  to  listen  to  the  words 
of  eternal  life  1" 

During  the  entire  reading  of  the  Counsel,  the  friends 
of  the  Prisoner  manifested  great  satisfaction,  and  showed 
at  times,  by  audible  signs,  their  approbation.  At  its 
close  they  pronounced  it  unanswerable. 

The  Counsel  continued  to  read  from  the  same  author : 
"  (b)  The  language  of  Peter,  when  he  baptized  the 
Gentiles  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  does  not  favor  im- 
mersion. When  they  believed  and  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Peter  said :  '  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized  V  that  is,  forbid  water  to 
be  brought.     Had  he   intended  to  baptize  them  by  im- 


152  THE   TRIAL   OP 

mersion,  it  would  have  been  much  more  natural  for  him 
to  say,  s  can  any  man  forbid  us  to  go  out  to  the  water, 
and  baptize  these,' 

"  (c)  The  circumstances  of  the  jailer's  baptism,  Acts 
16  :  19-39,  imply  that  he  was  not  baptized  by  immer- 
sion. He  was  baptized  in  the  night,  when  it  would  have, 
been  very  inconvenient  to  go  to  a  suitable  place  for  im- 
mersion. The  rite  was  evidently  performed  in  the  prin- 
cipal room  of  the  prison;  for  nothing  is  said  of  their 
leaving  the  house,  we  are  only  told  that  they  had  been 
thrust  into  the  dungeon  or  inner  prison,  and  that  they 
were  brought  out  of  that  apartment  to  where  the  family 
of  the  jailer  were,  whom  they  taught.  And  when  he 
professed  his  faith,  we  are  told  he  was  baptized  immedi- 
ately j  not,  he  immediately  started  off  with  his  family, 
and  with  Paul  and  (Silas,  in  the  night,  to  a  suitable  place 
to  be  immersed. 

"  (d)  Matt.  3 :  16.  When  Jesus  was  baptized  of  John 
in  the  Jordan,  'he  went  up  straight  way  out  of  the  water :' 
and  Acts  8  :  38.  *  They  (the  Ethiopian  Eunuch  and 
Philip)  went  down  both  into  the  water,  and  he  baptized 
him.'  In  these  passages  the  prepositions  eis  and  apo,  may 
with  equal  propriety  be  rendered  to  and  from.  Thus  the 
former  is  translated  in  John's  gospel:  'John  came  first 
to  (eis)  the  sepulchre'  of  our  Lord,  l  but  he  went  not  in.' 
And  again:  'He  sent  forth  his  servants  to  call  them 
that  were  bidden  to  (eis)  the  wedding,  (feast,')  and  many 
ether  passages;  and  the  latter  is  thus  rendered  in  the 
passages  :  '  And  forthwith  the  angel  departed /row  (apo) 
him,'  and  '  the  angel  came  and  rolled  the  stone/row?  (apo) 


Wit.  rEDOBAl'TIST.  153 

the  door,'  and  others.  These  prepositions  do,  therefore, 
not  with  certainty,  prove  anything  more,  than  that  these 
persons  went  to  the  water  to  be  baptized  and  afterwards 
came  from  it.  But  even  if  it  were  certain  that  they 
went  into  the  water,  this  would  by  no  means  determine 
the  manner  in  which  they  were  baptized.  They  might 
have  gone  in  to  the  depth  of  their  ankles  or  knees,  and 
baptized  according  to  the  Jewish  baptism,  described  in 
Numbers,  by  pouring  the  water  on  with  a  vessel,  or  with 
the  hand,  or  by  sprinkling  it  over  the  subject. 

"  (e)  Nor  does  the  fact,  that  '  John  baptised  in  Enon, 
because  there  was  much  water  (polla  udata,  many  springs) 
there,'  determine  the  mode  of  baptism,  because  whatever 
be  the  object,  sacred  or  profane,  for  which  large  multi- 
tudes assemble,  to  spend  one  or  more  days  together,  it  is 
a  notorious  fact,  that  the  vicinity  of  a  spring  or  creek  or 
river  is  always  preferred,  for  water  is  indispensably  ne- 
cessary to  their  subsistence.  Are  not  such  places  always 
preferred  for  fourth  of  July  orations,  military  parades 
and  camp  meetings  ?  yet  who  would  infer  that  the  Metho- 
dists baptize  by  immersion,  because  they  hold  their  camp 
meetings  in  the  vicinity  of  water.  And  as  thousands 
followed  John,  what  is  more  natural  than  that  he  should 
select  a  place  where  there  was  abundance  of  water  for 
their  subsistence  1  Indeed,  at  no  other  place  eould  such 
crowds  remain  with  him  more  than  half  a  day,  or  even 
that  long,  in  the  warm  season.  Moreover,  we  are  told 
that  there  were  'many  waters'  at  Enon.  %Now,  it  is  geo- 
graphically certain,  that  there  are  neither  many  rivers 
nor  many  creeks  at  any  supposed  sites  of  Enon,  for  its 


lai  THE   TRIAL   Ol 

location  is  not  fully  ascertained.  At  most,  then?  there' 
were  several  springs  there ;  but  are  springs  the  most 
suitable  places  for  immersion  1     Certainly  not." 

This  author,  said  the  Counsel,  in  his  exposition  of  the 
sacred  use  of  baptizo,  and  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  performance  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  shows  the 
impossibility  of  immersion  being  the  exclusive  manner 
of  baptizing,  under  the  first  institution  of  this  ordinance* 
This  is  all  we  claim  to  justify  the  conduct  of  the  Pri- 
soner. 

The  Counsel  on  the  other  side,  expressed  great  confi- 
dence  in  his  argument  founded  on  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  In  making 
this  argument,  he  forgot  to  make  good  the  foundation 
on  which  it  rests.  For  he  assumes  as  his  premises,  that 
the  prepositions  signify  what  he  takes  them  to  mean. 
Here  is  the  disputed  ground.  That  they  have  in  the 
Scriptures  a  variety  of  signification,  is  already  in  proof. 
If  denied,  there  is  ample  evidence  at  hand  to  show  that 
prepositions  alone  will  not  afford  a  substantial  ground 
for  his  argument. 

We  will  now  give  an  additional  specimen  of  the 
character  of  the  prepositions.  I  will  read  from  the  Debate 
of  Campbell  and  Eice,  page  203.  "  But  let  me  read  a 
few  passages  of  Scripture,  translating  the  word  eis,  into, 
and  ek,  out  of,  as  the  gentleman  wishes ;  that  the  audi- 
ence may  judge  of  the  soundness  of  his  criticisms,  2 
Kings  6  :  4.  '  When  they  came  into  (eis)  Jordan,  they 
cut  down  wood.'  Did  the  persons  go  literally  into  Jor- 
dan in  order  to  cut  wood  1  Isa.  36  :  2.  'And  the  king  of 


MR.   1'EDOBAPTIST.  1S5 

Assyria  sent  Kabshekeh  out  of  (ek)  Lachesh  into  (eis) 
Jerusalem,  unto  Hezekiah  with  a  great  army.'  John  6  : 
23.  '  Howbeit,  there  came  other  boats  out  of  (ek)  Tibe- 
rias.' John  8 :  23.  'And  he  said  unto  them,  ye  are  out 
of  (ek)  beneath  ;  1  am  out  of  (ek)  above  ;  ye  are  out  of 
(ek)  this  world  5  1  am  not  out  of  (ek)  this  world.  Ch.' 
9  :  1 .  'And  as  Jesus  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  blind  out 
of  (ek)  his  birth.'  Verse  7.  'And  (Jesus)  said  unto  him 
go  wash  into  (eis)  the  pool  of  Siloam.'  Verse  11.  'And 
(Jesus)  said  unto  me,  go  into  (eis)  the  pool  of  Siloam 
and  wash.'  Ch.  11:  31.  'She  goeth  into  (eis)  the  grave 
to  weep  there.'  Verse  38.  '  Jesus  cometh  into  (eis)  the 
grave.  It  was  a  cave  and  a  stone  lay  upon  it.'  "  This 
exhibition  of  these  prepositions  shows  they  do  signify  to 
and  from.  We  have  said  sufficient  in  reply  to  this  argu- 
ment, to  satisfy  all  candid  men  of  its  unsoundness.  It 
will  help  to  present  Mr.  Baptist  as  not  very  enviable 
for  Christian  charity.  (Applause  manifested  by  the  crowd 
in  attendance.)  We  are  now  prepared  to  proceed  to  reply 
to  the  next  argument  offered  by  the  prosecution. 

BAPTISM    IN    ITS    DESIGN. 

The  Counsel  said,  we  will  now  proceed  to  examine 
the  argument  for  immersion,  founded  on  the  declaration 
that  baptism  is  a  symbolic  representation  of  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  He  said  he  was  ex- 
ceedingly glad  to  see  the  increasing  interest  manifested 
by  the  people  in  this  trial.  He  welcomed  with  cordiality 
such  a  large  increase  of  the  principal  citizens,  as  are 
found  in  the  audience  to  day.     Their  influence  ought  to 


156  HIE    TRIAL   OP 

be  potent  when  this  question  is  to  be  determined.  (The 
Court  here  stopped  the  Counsel  and  said,  "  he  would  not 
permit  either  of  the  Counsel  to  appeal  to  the  passions 
of  the  multitude  present,  nor  would  he  suffer  those  au- 
dible marks  of  applause,  that  had  been  manifested  here- 
tofore.") The  Counsel  resumed  and  said,  he  was  thank- 
ful to  the  Court  for  these  suggestions;  but  he  could  not 
refrain  from  saying,  that  tha  majesty  of  the  people  in 
their  sympathy  ought  not  to-be  treated  with  indifference 
when  shown  in  favor  of  innocence. 

I  will  now  read  (he  said)  the  two  passages  of  Scripture 
On  which  this  argument  is  founded.  The  first  one  is  to 
be  found  in  Romans  6  :  3,  4.  "  Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death  1  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death  5  that,  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

Col.  2:  12.  "Buried  with  him  (Christ)  in  baptism, 
wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God." 

1.  Let  us  inquire  where  is  the  evidence  of  literal  bap- 
tism, being  a  symbolic  representation  of  Christ's  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  exclusive  of  these  two  Scrip- 
tures in  which  it  is  said  to  be  taught.  I  answer  there  is 
none.  Without  the  proof  of  some  general  understand- 
ing by  Christ  and  his  apostles  of  this  design  of  baptism, 
no  one  has  a  right  to  presume  this  to  be  its  design. — 1 
But  this  understanding  is  essential  to  the  argument,  and 
the  failure  of  the  prosecution  must  follow  the  want  of  it. 


3IK.  EED0BAPM3T.  15? 

This  fact  should  excite  our  suspicion,  of  their  legitimate 
use  of  these  two  passages  of  Scripture.  The  appropria- 
tion of  these  passages  of  Scripture  (without  this  under- 
standing) to  the  use  they  make  of  them,  cannot  be  war- 
ranted by  the  forms  of  law,  or  the  rules  of  evidence. 

2.  We  conclude  they  have  misunderstood  the  design 
of  these  Scriptures,  from  the  figures  found  therein,  and 
in  their  connections,  "dead"  "buried,"  "resurrection," 
"  crucifixion,"  &c.  These  figures  ought  to  teach  us  a 
different  design  contemplated  by  the  Apostle.  The  death 
unto  sin  without  doubt  is  a  spiritual  death— the  resur- 
rection is  spiritual,  because  it  is  produced,  as  one  of  these 
passages  says,  by  faith,  and  newness  of  life  follows  as  its 
consequence.  We  cannot,  with  any  show  of  consistency, 
say  the  death  and  resurrection  is  spiritual  and  the  burial 
is  literal  or  symbolical.  To  do  so,  with  the  opposing  evi- 
dence found  in  the  passages,  is  exceedingly  perverse. 

The  spiritual  design  contemplated  in  these  Scriptures, 
is  again  evident,  from  the  planting  and  the  crucifixion  of 
the  old  man,  verses  5,  6.  If  the  burial  is  immersion, 
what  is  the  planting,  or  engrafting,  as  some  render  it  % 
Are  we  accustomed  to  plant  seed  in  water  %  The  mean- 
ing (if  planting  is  the  correct  rendering  of  the  word)  is 
this  :  The  seed  is  put  into  the  earth  and  it  dies ;  but  a 
new  stalk  springs  up  from  it.  So  the  old  man  is  put,  as 
it  were,  into  the  earth ;  and  a  new  man  rises  up,  like  a 
new  stalk,  to  live  a  new  life.  But  if  both  burying  and 
planting  express  the  mode  of  baptism,  what  mode  is  in- 
dicated by  crucifixion,  which  we  find  in  the  same  con- 
nection to  express  the  same  idea  %     It  will  not  answer  to 


158  THE    TKIAL    Oil 

select  one  of  these  figures  to  express  mode,  and  exclude 
the  others. 

3.  The  antithesis  found  in  the  passages,  confirms  our 
view  of  their  import,  and  shows  the  mistaken  application 
of  them  by  the  Counsel  for  the  prosecution.  The  an* 
tithesis  shows  itself  in  this  form,  by  the  death  and  resur* 
rection  being  spiritual,  it  of  necessity  requires  of  all  the 
other  figures  in  the  passages  a  like  import.  The  an- 
tithesis would  be  lost,  if  we  take  the  ground  that  the 
death  is  spiritual,  and  the  resurrection  to  be  symbolical. 
This  resurrection  is  declared  to  be  the  result  of  faith, 
and  resulting  from  faith  it  must  be  moral  or  spiritual. 

4.  The  whole  scope  and  design  of  the  passages  contem* 
plate  a  moral  subject,  and  not  a  symbolic  representation 
of  Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  I  think  we 
have  clearly  proven  the  spiritual  intention  and  expres- 
sion found  in  these  Scriptures,  applicable  only  to  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  those  addressed.  They 
only  find  an  easy  interpretation  from  this  view  of  their 
meaning.  The  Counsel's  use  of  them,  for  a  symbolic 
object,  cannot  be  well  reconciled  with  all  they  teach  in 
relation  to  the  object  they  contemplate. 

It  is  not  reasonable  for  us  to  suppose  these  passages 
will  give  an  arbitrary  construction  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, when  the  primary  proof  of  the  prosecution  fails  to 
make  one  out.  In  the  light  of  this  last  fact,  the  Coun- 
sel has  no  right  to  presume  it.  We  claim  additional 
strength  to  the  position  we  have  taken  of  the  symbolic 
design  of  baptism,  from  the  Counsel's  failure  to  prove 
immersion  to  be  the  only  mode  of  Christian  baptism. 


ttll.  VKDOiiAl'TlSf .  159 

We  will  now  give  a  few  learned  authorities,  in  support 
of  our  general  representation  of  the  doctrine  which  these 
passages  contain. 

Dr.  Rice :  "  What,  then,  are  we  to  understand  by  the 
death,  burial,  resurrection  and  crucifixion  1  The  death  to 
sin,  and  resurrection  to  newness  of  life,  certainly  signify 
the  change  of  heart  and  life  from  sin  to  holiness,  that  is, 
sanctification.  The  planting  and  crucifixion  of  the  old 
man,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  evidently 
express  precisely  the  same  idea. — Debate,  p.  242. 

Professor  Stuart :  "  indeed,  what  else  but  a  moral 
burying  can  be  meant  when  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  say  % 
"We  are  buried  with  him  (not  by  baptism  only,  but)  by 
baptism  into  his  death  X  Of  course  it  will  not  be  con- 
tended, that  a  literal,  physical  burying  is  here  meant,  but 
only  a  moral  one.  And  although  the  words  into  his  death,, 
are  not  inserted  in  Col.  2:  12,  yet,  as  the  following 
verse  there  shows,  they  are  plainly  implied,  in  fact,  it 
is  plain  that  reference  is  here  made  to  baptism,  because 
when  the  rite  was  performed,  the  Christian  promised  to 
renounce  sin,  and  mortify  all  his  evil  desires,  and  thus 
to  die  unto  sin,  that  he  might  live  unto  God.  i  cannot 
see,  therefore,  that  there  is  any  more  necessary  reference 
here  to  the  modus  of  baptism,  than  there  is  to  the  modus 
of  the  resurrection.  The  one  may  as  well  be  maintained 
as  the  other." — Stuart  on  Bap.,  p.  104. 

REVIEW  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner  proceeded  to  reply  to  the 
argument  founded  on  the  history  of  the  Church,     What 


HO  THE   TRIAL  Of 

do  the  facts  of  history  warrant,  as  found  in  evidence  on 
both  sides  of  this  controversy  1  We  answer  most  em- 
phatically the  following-  things  are  true : 

1.  For  some  years  after  the  Apostles'  days,  we  have  no 
reliable  facts  on  the  manner  of  baptizing,  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  unfolding  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Christians.  Their  practice  you  will  not  find  in  the  evi- 
dence before  us.  We  conclude  the  manner  of  baptizing 
to  have  been  what  the  church  thought  suitable  and  con- 
venient. The  reason  for  this  conclusion  may  be  found 
in  the  fact  proven — the  law  of  baptism  required  no  par- 
ticular manner. 

2.  At  a  later  period  in  the  Church's  history,  we  find, 
as  the  testimony  on  both  sides  shows,  a  variety  of  modes 
of  baptizing,  these  were  trine  immersion  naked,  pouring, 
&c.  It  is  true  that  trine  immersion  naked  became  more 
general  than  pouring  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 
No  one  will  dare  (1  hope)  to  plead,  that  the  reason  of  its 
prevalence  was  divine  authority.  This  trine  immersion 
naked,  is  at  present  repudiated  by  the  Baptists.  This 
eccentricity,  with  others,  in  relation  to  Christian  bap- 
tism, we  are  compelled  by  the  Scriptures  to  conclude 
was  the  offspring  of  the  times,  and  is  not  to  claim  autho- 
rity from  the  original  institution.  During  the  practice 
of  trine  immersion  for  baptism,  Ave  do  not  find  an  abso- 
lute denial  of  the  validity  of  baptism  by  other  modes. 
Cyprian  in  the  most  express  terms  gives  his  cordial 
approbation  to  pouring,  and  so  testify  other  authorities 
in  evidence. 

3.  The  history  of  the  church  as  a  whole  proves  that 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  161 

a  variety  of  modes  of  baptism  was  practised,  and  ac- 
counted valid  baptism.  The  reason  for  this  variety  of 
modes  of  baptism,  can  only  be  found  in  the  original 
ordinance  not  requiring  any  particular  manner  of  per- 
forming the  rite.  It  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the 
ground  that  baptizo  invariably  calls  for  immersion. 

4.  We  do  not  find  in  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Fathers  that  proscriptive  policy  on  the  mode  of  baptism, 
that  is  to  be  found  among  the  Baptists.  They  are  found 
denying  the  validity  of  any  other  mode  of  baptism  than 
immersion.  This  striking  and  singular  difference  of 
conduct  between  the  Fathers  and  the  Baptists,  can  only 
be  accounted  for  by  the  different  positions  occupied  by 
the  parties.  The  Fathers,  who  had  the  best  means  of 
knowing  whether  there  was  an  original  manner  of  bap- 
tizing commanded  or  not,  are  found  refusing  to  occupy 
the  position  of  the  Baptists.  The  conclusion  becomes 
inevitable,  that  the  Baptists  are  wrong,  and  that  the  doc- 
trine of  a  variety  of  modes  of  baptism  has  the  sanction 
of  the  Fathers.  Their  testimony  being  contemporaneous 
with  the  establishment  of  this  Government  in  its  practical 
operation,  must  forever  be  a  death  blow  to  the  proscrip- 
tive policy  of  the  Baptists  in  our  day,  and  to  the  idea 
that  immersion  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury — it  will  not  be  necessary  for 
me  to  pursue  this  argument  any  further.  You  can  see 
upon  its  face  sufficient  evidence  fully  to  justify  the  Pri- 
soner's conduct,  and  remove  every  implication  of  his 
guilt  of  the  charge  contained  in  the  indictment.  The 
argument  fails  in  that  essentia!  ingredient,  of  an  inva- 


162  THE    TRIAL    OF 

riable  mode  of  baptism  designated  by  baptizo,  on  which 
alone  the  prosecution  can  rest.  Without  this  proof  the 
whole  defence  of  the  Commonwealth  falls  to  the  ground. 
I  have,  from  the  evidence  offered  by  the  other  side,  shown 
you,  that  it  fails  in  all  those  essential  features  necessary 
to  make  good  the  charge  preferred  with  so  much  confi- 
dence against  the  Prisoner  by  Mr.  Baptist. 

ACCOUNTING  FOR  THE  CHANGE  FROM  IMMERSION. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  answer  the  last  argument  on 
which  the  prosecution  relies  for  a  conviction.  It  is  the 
one  that  charges  my  client  with  the  crime  of  changing 
the  original  action  in  baptism  from  immersion  to  pour- 
ing, &c.  It  will  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  go  into  the 
examination  of  the  witnesses  in  detail — because  their 
testimony  is  founded  on  certain  general  principles.  When 
these  are  understood  by  the  Court  and  jury,  there  will 
be  no  trouble  in  our  way,  to  place  a  just  estimate  on  the 
weight  of  the  testimony  in  evidence  and  its  application  to 
this  trial.  The  testimony  of  these  witnesses  is,  we  think, 
invaluable  to  the  Prisoner,  and  fatal  to  the  prosecution. 

Let  us  now  classify  the  principles  applicable  to  the 
testimony  on  this  part  of  the  case.  (1)  All  the  authori- 
ties offered  in  evidence  by  Mr.  Baptist,  fail  to  make  out 
for  baptizo  an  invariable  mode.  This  we  have  all  per- 
ceived by  this  time,  and  so  did  the  witnesses.  (2)  The 
Scriptures  do  not  determine  the  mode  of  baptism.  (3)  In 
warm  climates,  where  bathing  is  a  luxury,  we  find  bap- 
tism by  immersion  more  common  than  any  other  mode  ; 
but  in  colder  climates  we  find  sprinkling,  &c,  more  usual 


MR.  PEDOEAPTIST.  163 

in  the  after  history  of  the  church.  (4)  The  Christian 
Fathers  did  account  baptism  by  pouring,  valid.  (5)  The 
variety  in  the  manner  of  baptizing  was  not  a  change  in  the 
thing  originally  contemplated  by  the  ordinance.  These 
principles  are  all  in  evidence,  and  their  application  to 
the  testimony  on  this  point  will  make  entirely  void  the 
charge  preferred,  of  a  change  in  the  original  institution. 

Is  it  not  clearly  made  out  impossible  for  a  change  to 
take  place  in  the  original  institution,  when  in  it  no  man- 
ner of  baptizing  is  determined  1  That  there  was  a  dif- 
ferent manner  of  baptizing  is  in  evidence.  But  a  change 
in  the  manner  of  baptizing  does  not  in  the  least  affect 
the  original  ordinance.  That  there  was  a  change  from 
one  manner  to  an  other  is  also  in  evidence.  For  us  to 
say  a  change  in  the  manner  of  baptizing  affects  the  origi- 
nal command,  which  contains  no  manner,  would  be  sup- 
ported by  no  authority  recognized  by  this  Court. 

This  development  of  the  argument  of  the  prosecution, 
founded  on  the  facts  in  evidence,  would  warrant  us  to 
dismiss  it  altogether,  as  unworthy  of  the  defence  of  the 
learned  Counsel  for  his  client.  Before  we  dismiss  it, 
however,  let  us  say,  that  the  argument  is  a  confirmation 
of  the  practice  of  the  Prisoner — that  manner  is  not  essen- 
tial to  baptism. 

We  will  next  present  a  few  more  rebutting  arguments, 
and  we  believe  that  when  all  our  arguments  are  taken 
together,  they  will  amount  to  a  demonstration  of  our 
position  taken  in  relation  to  this  controversy.  I  know 
we  have  already  done  more  than  the  law  demanded  of 
us  in  this  case  ;   but  we  have   cheerfully  performed  a 


164  THE   TRIAL   OF 

work  which  we  were  not  required  to  perform,  for  the 
purpose  of  hereafter  placing  Mr.  Baptist  in  no  enviable 
light  in  the  eye  of  the  nation. 

The  Counsel  proceeded  to  offer  some  additional  argu- 
ments in  confirmation  of  his  position,  and  for  the  justi- 
fication of  the  Prisoner. 

He  said  he  was  prepared  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Court  and  jury  to  a  few  positions,  the  consideration  of 
which  had  been  deferred  on  a  former  occasion. 

1.  The  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  baptism  was 
promised  by  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  in  these 
words  :  "  He  (Christ)  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  with  fire."  The  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  a  fulfilment  of  this 
promise.  The  Apostle  referring  to  the  events  of  that 
day,  says  :  "  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water  ;  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days 
hence."  Let  us  note:  (1)  That  this  baptism  was  to  the 
disciples  a  real  one,  and  not  a  figurative  one.  This  is 
certainly  evident  from  the  promise  and  its  fulfilment 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (2)  The  manner  of  this  bap- 
tism was  by  the  pouring  out  the  Holy  Ghost.  Pouring 
here  is  made  the  mode  of  that  more  important  baptism, 
of  which  water  baptism  is  only  an  emblem.  The  real 
baptism  being  by  pouring,  the  other  ought  to  show  a  re- 
semblance. (3)  We  have  in  this  baptism  divine  authori- 
ty for  pouring,  as  its  mode.  This  should  settle  the  mode 
of  the  ordinance  ;  because,  supported  by  divine  authority. 
(4)  This  baptism  is  by  the  application  of  the  spirit  to 
the  subject,  and  not  the  person  to  the   spirit,  as   immer- 


MR,  PEDOBAPTIST,  165 

sion  imperatively  requires.  (5)  From  this  baptism,  we 
may  also  learn  the  idea  of  the  Evangelist,  when  he  says 
of  John's  baptism,  that  it  was  to  be  "with  water;"  that 
is,  the  application  of  the  element  to  the  subject.  (6)  If 
the  words,  "  pour,"  and  "  shed  forth,"  as  used  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Spirit's  bestowment  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
are  to  be  taken  in  a  figurative  acceptation,  the  figura- 
tive use  of  these  words  cannot  in  any  possible  way,  come 
from  literal  immersion  ;  but  the  foundation  of  their  figu- 
rative use,  must  be  found  in  their  literal  meaning.  In 
their  literal  import  we  find  no  resemblance  to  immersion. 

If  we  look  at  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  together, 
as  they  are  connected  with  this  baptism,  they  place  im- 
mersion, as  the  invariable  meaning  of  baptism,  beyond 
a  possibility. 

A  confirming  argument  for  this  manner  of  baptising, 
may  be  found  in  this  fact,  that  the  inspired  writers  con- 
stantly represent  sanctification  by  sprinkling  and  pouring. 
This  is  clearly  taught  by  Ezekiel  36:  25,  in  these  words  : 
"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols 
will  I  cleanse  you."  If  Ezekiel  was  right  in  represent- 
ing sanctification  by  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water,  can 
we  be  wrong  in  copying  this  divine  example  in  baptism, 
as  an  emblem  of  sanctification  1  Certainly  not.  Divine 
authority,  such  as  this,  is  authoritative. 

Again,  Isaiah  speaking  of  the  advent  and  work  of 
Christ,  says:  "So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  53: 
15.  This  promise  contemplates  many  nations  to  be 
sprinkled  under  the  gospel  dispensation.     If  immersion 


166  THE    TUIAL    OF 

is  the  invariable  mode  of  baptism  under  this  dispensa- 
tion, how  can  this  prophecy  ever  he  fulfilled  1  In  the 
adoption  of  sprinkling  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  we  have 
this  prophecy  literally  fulfilled.  This  fact  makes  this 
argument  significant,  and  should  make  it  potent  in  its 
influence  on  your  judgment  of  this  case. 

Again,  we  find  an  additional  confirmation  of  this  po- 
sition, from  the  fact,  that  the  washings  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, the  mode  of  which  was  prescribed,  were  required 
to  be  performed  by  sprinkling.  The  only  exception  was 
in  regard  to  vessels.  Look  at  Levit.  14.  Again  at  Num. 
19 :  17,  20.  The  significant  mode  in  these  places  was 
sprinkling,  as  emblematical  of  purification.  We  find, 
this  to  be  the  divine  mode  adopted  in  the  application  of 
water,  as  an  emblem  of  purification  ;  and  to  practice  after 
it  in  baptism,  where  no  particular  mode  is  required,  is 
following  divine  authority.  Is  it  not  strange  we  are 
blamed  by  Mr.  Baptist  for  this  divine  conformity,  and 
this,  too,  when  he  has  no  divine  example  to  warrant  the 
mode  of  baptism  so  dear  to  him  !  Consistency  is  said  to 
be  a  jewel  in  the  character  of  men  ;  unfortunately  it  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Baptist. 

2.  Our  second  additional  argument  is,  that  no  Apostle 
or  Christian  minister,  so  far  astheJVeiv  Testament  informs 
vs,  ever  went  a  single  step  after  water  to  baptize.  The 
only  apparent  exception  to  this,  is  the  case  of  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch.  This  case  is  no  real  exception,  for  they 
were  not  in  pursuit  of  water ;  it  was  met  by  them  on 
their  journey.  Is  not  this  fact  unaccountable,  if  immer- 
sion was  the  only  mode  of  baptism  1 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  67 

You  may  note  all  the  baptisms  in  the  acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  you  will  find  theve  the  same  unaccountable 
silence.  For  instance,  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  These  were  the  first  to  receive 
Christian  baptism.  Now,  if  immersion  was  the  only 
mode  of  baptism,  that  was  the  time  to  set  the  example 
and  leave  a  precedent  for  all  coming  baptisms.  The  rea- 
son it  was  not  done  is  to  us  easy  of  solution,  because 
immersion  was  not  essential  to  Christian  baptism.  Look 
at  the  baptism  of  Paul  by  Ananias.  The  same  state  of 
facts  is  to  be  found — no  water  sought  after — baptized 
forthwith  in  the  house  where  the  scales  fell  from  his 
eyes.  All  the  other  baptisms  are  of  like  character.  This 
single  fact  presents  an  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  the  success  of  the  prosecution. 

This  incontestable  fact  shows  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  that  immersion  was  not  the  only  mode  of  baptism 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles  ;  but  that  other  modes  of  bap- 
tism were  adopted,  that  were  suitable  and  convenient. 
This  great  truth  should  not  be  passed  over  in  silence, 
when  it  shadows  forth  so  much  influence  in  favor  of  the 
Prisoner. 

RECAPITULATION  OF  THE  ARGUMENTS  OF   DEFENDANT'S 
COUNSEL. 

We  will  now  commence  to  recapitulate  our  arguments 
before  we  close  our  address,  that  you  may  better  under- 
stand the  defence  we  oner  for  the  conduct  of  the  Pri- 
soner, and  see  the  insufficiency  of  the  grounds  on  which 
the  prosecution  claims  any  indulgence  at  your  hands. 


168  THE    TRIAL    OF 

1.  The  principles  of  law  laid  down  to  the  Court  and 
jury  remain  undisputed.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to 
repeat  them  in  this  place.  You  have  them  before  you, 
and  I  expect  the  Court  to  endorse  them  in  its  charge. 

2.  The  evidence  we  offered,  and  the  replies  made  to 
the  various  classes  of  witnesses  offered  by  the  Common- 
wealth, may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  order:  (1) 
The  testimony  of  Mr.  Classic  shows  a  variety  of  mean- 
ings to  baptizo.  (2)  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Josephus 
corroborates  that  of  Mr.  Classic.  (3)  The  testimony  of 
Mr.  Lexicon  is  of  the  same  import.  (4)  Mr.  Translator 
teaches  wash  to  be  the  popular  signification  of  baptizo. 
(5)  The  Pedobaptist  witnesses  justify  the  conduct  of„ 
the  Prisoner.  (6)  The  sacred  use  of  baptizo,  from  the 
testimony,  signifies  the  application  of  water,  by  any  of 
the  modes  of  baptism  in  evidence.  (7)  The  symbolic 
meaning  of  baptism  is  altogether  different  from  that 
which  Mr.  Baptist  teaches  it  to  be.  (8)  The  historical 
understanding  of  baptism  is  a  variety  of  modes,  approved 
by  the  ancient  church.  (9)  The  change  said  to  have 
been  made  in  the  action  of  baptism  was  simply  a  change 
from  one  mode  to  an  other. 

This  is  the  state  of  the  evidence  before  the  Court  and 
jury,  from  which  this  case  must  be  determined.  Have 
we  not  a  right,  from  this  view  of  the  testimony,  to  claim 
at  your  hands  a  triumphant  acquittal  1  This  conclusion 
of  the  case,  justice  to  all  parties  imperatively  demands. 
I  make  this  demand  with  confidence ;  because  it  is  my 
right  from  the  evidence.  To  deny  it  at  this  crisis,  will 
be  to  trample  under  foot  all  the  forms  of  law  and  evi- 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST,  169 

dence.  Are  you  by  this  denial,  prepared  to  exile  jus- 
tice from  our  beloved  Commonwealth  1  If  this  is  done 
by  your  refusal  to  acquit  the  Prisoner,  you  will  hear  a 
response  from  all  parts  of  our  land  in  tones  of  grief,  that 
will  execrate  forever  the  conduct  of  those  who,  when 
the  law  placed  the  power  in  their  hands,  refused  to  shield 
innocence  in  the  hour  of  calumny  and  danger. 

These  dark  shadows,  so  ominous  of  danger  to  our 
country's  weal,  excite  in  me  no  appalling  apprehensions 
of  a  coming  desolation ;  because  I  know  the  place  you 
occupy  is  the  palladium  of  the  nation's  safety,  and  you 
realize  your  responsibility  to  this,  and  coming  genera- 
tions. I  know  your  action  on  this  case,  will  secure  un- 
impaired, the  perpetuity  of  our  nationality.  We  see  in 
the  future,  after  this  angry  controversy  shall  have  been 
determined  by  your  action,  a  clear  sky  and  a  welcome 
haven  into  which  we  expect  to  enter  by  your  permission. 
There  shall  you  and  I  receive  the  congratulations  of  a 
loyal  people.  To  secure  an  end  so  noble,  generous  and 
patriotic,  we  have  labored  during  this  trial  With  unceas- 
ing fidelity  to  our  client,  and  our  country. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury ;  I  know  the  Court  will  lay 
down  to  you  the  law  with  impartiality,  and  in  its  just 
application  I  am  sure  you  will  acquit  the  Prisoner,  and. 
thereby  brand  forever  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Baptist  with 
infamy.  1  leave  the  case  with  you,  with  the  abiding 
conviction  you  will  do  the  parties  that  justice  which  you 
would  desire  administered  to  yourselves,  if  ever  you 
should  be  placed  in  their  situations.  This  is  all  we  in- 
voke at  your  hands  to  justify  the  Prisoner.  I  have  done. 
8 


170  THE    TRIAL    OF 

The  close  of  this  address  was  received  by  the  friends 
of  Mr.  Pedobaptist  with  audible  expressions  of  joy  and 
triumph. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  Court,  which  took  place 
at  the  close  of  the  address  of  the  defendant's  Counsel, 
there  was  much  exciting  conversation  between  the  two 
parties  interested  personally,  in  the  issue  of  the  trial. 
The  friends  of  Mr.  Pedobaptist  boastingly  declared,  the 
defence  made  was  unanswerable,  and  they  said  the  tri- 
umphant acquittal  of  the  Prisoner  was  certain.  The 
friends  of  Mr.  Baptist  bore  these  taunting  announce- 
ments without  complaining,  only  making  this  reply  to 
the  party — not  to  shout  victory  until  the  battle  was  won; 

The  excitement  was  kept  up  throughout  the  city,  until 
the  meeting  of  the  Court  in  the  afternoon.  After  the 
Court  was  called  to  order,  the  Counsel  for  Mr.  Baptist 
commenced  his  closing  address  to  the  Court  and  jury. 

CLOSING    ADDRESS    OF    THE    COUNSEL    FOR    THE    PROSECUTION. 

If  the  Court  please,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  stand 
before  you  and  our  common  country,  to  vindicate  the 
majesty  of  the  law,  as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution. 
It  proclaims  to  all  our  citizens  a  common  birth-right. 
We  are  called  upon  to  correct  a  flagrant  violation  of  one 
of  the  most  cherished  provisions  of  our  Constitution. 
This  violation  makes  practically  void  the  action  of 
Christian  baptism,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  language  of 
that  instrument.  The  history  that  comes  down  to  us, 
from  those  Fathers  who  lived  at  the  time  of  its  adoption, 
and  after  it  had  gone  into  practical  operation,  declares 


MR,    PEDOBAPTIST.  171 

the  practice  of  the  Prisoner  to  be  a  daring  innovation 
upon  the  constitutional  law  of  baptism. 

The  question  you  are  called  upon  to  decide  at  this 
time,  is,  who  is  guilty  of  this  bold  sacrilege1?  or,  who 
has  been  faithless  to  his  constitutional  obligation  1  The 
answer  that  comes  in  way  of  response,  from  the  testi* 
mony  before  us,  declares  the  Prisoner  at  the  bar  alone 
is  implicated,  as  the  author  of  the  innovation,  which 
makes  void  the  law  of  baptism.  Let  us  now  proceed  to 
examine  the  defence  the  Counsel  offered  for  his  conduct. 

1.  Let  us  notice  the  Counsel's  representation  of  our 
"  incontestable  facts,"  as  they  are  found  in  our  opening 
address  to  the  Court  and  jury.  The  Counsel  professed, 
but  only  in  appearance,  to  contest  the  soundness  of  some 
of  them.  In  reality  he  sought  to  divert  your  attention 
from  the  weight  of  influence  they  should  exercise  over 
your  judgment,  in  estimating  the  force  of  the  evidence 
before  you.  We  will  now  undertake  to  prove,  that  from 
his  admissions  he  becomes  a  confirming  witness,  of  the 
soundness  of  the  principles  of  law  and  evidence,  which 
he  sought  by  his  ingenuity  to  evade. 

Let  us  hear  him  speak  in  relation  to  our  first  fact, 
which  teaches  that  bapttzo,  and  not  bapto,  is  used  exclu- 
sively when  Christian  baptism  is  named  or  spoken  of. 
"  We  cordially  admit,"  said  he, "  that  baptizo  alone  is  used 
when  the  ordinance  (of  baptism)  is  named."  We  knew 
this  fact  was  so  well  sustained  by  authorities,  that  for 
him  to  have  doubted  it,  with  Stuart  and  Carson  at  his 
hand,  would  have  been  a  blunder  against  which  Pedo- 
baptists  would  have  protested. 


172  THE   TRIAL   OF 

After  making  this  admission,  he  opens  a  fire  from  a 
battery,  which  he  well  knew,  was  only  a  useless  waste 
of  ammunition.  He  says,  Carson  teaches  that  "bapto 
signifies  to  dye  in  any  manner."  We  have  fairly  stated 
the  distinction  between  bapto  and  baptizo,  in  their  rela- 
tion to  Christian  baptism.  Bapto  does  not  legitimately 
come  within  this  debate,  because  it  is  never,  in  a  soli- 
tary instance,  used  to  denote  the  action  of  baptism.  It 
is  a  fact,  fully  sustained  by  Stuart  and  Carson,  that 
bapto,  in  its  primary  meaning,  signifies  to  dip,  and,  after 
its  use  in  dyeing,  it  came  to  signify  to  dye,  because 
things  were  usually  dipped,  that  they  might  be  dyed. 
Let  us  hear  again  Professor  Stuart :  "  The  idea  of  im- 
mersing or  plunging,  is  common  to  both  the  words  bapto 
and  baptizo,  while  that  of  dyeing  or  coloring  belongs 
only  to  bapto,"  p.  43.  In  Carson's  and  Stuart's  works 
on  baptism,  you  will  find  numerous  examples  from  the 
language,  fully  confirming  this  statement  of  Stuart.  We 
have  not  transcribed  these  examples,  because  the  whole 
controversy  between  the  parties,  must  hinge  upon  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  law.  This  evasion  by  the  Coun- 
sel, of  the  only  point  in  our  first  fact,  will  not  avail  him 
any  thing  in  building  his  house  of  sand. 

2.  To  our  second  fact,  which  teaches  baptism  to  be  a 
positive  duty,  and  not  a  moral  one,  he  replies,  "  who  dis- 
putes it."  After  making  this  admission,  he  adopts  a 
cunning  evasion,  by  giving,  what  he  conceives  to  be,  the 
essential  prerequisites  of  baptism.  What  have  they  to 
do  with  this  "  incontestable  fact  Vf  Nothing  at  all.  The 
prerequisites  of  baptism  are  not  at  present  properly  be- 


MR.    FEJDOBAPTIST.  173 

fore  us.  The  question  under  this  head  is,  is  baptism  a 
positive  or  a  moral  duty  1  He  has  admitted  it  to  he  a 
positive  institution,  and  this  is  all  we  demand  at  present. 
When  the  prerequisites  of  baptism  are  before  us,  we 
shall  point  out  the  mistakes  into  which  he  has  fallen  on 
that  point. 

3.  To  our  third  fact,  which  avers  that  only  the  popu- 
lar meaning  of  words  in  positive  duties  are  to  be  taken, 
as  expressive  of  the  will  of  the  Lawgiver,  he  replies  by 
saying,  *•  this  is  our  principle  as  well  as  his."  This  is 
all  we  demanded  of  the  Counsel.  To  oppose  this  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation  was  impossible,  in  view  of  the 
testimony  offered  to  sustain  it. 

4.  He  passes  by  our  fourth  fact,  by  saying  it  was  in- 
cluded in  the  third.  This  is  a  practical  admission  of  its 
soundness,  and  is  all  we  have  a  right  to  ask  at  his  hands. 
He  proceeds  to  notice  our  fifth  fact,  which,  teaches,  that 
the  figurative  acceptation  of  words  is  not  within  the 
pale  of  legislation.  He  does  not  undertake  to  invalidate 
this  law  of  interpretation ;  but  makes  remarks,  which  do 
not  in  the  least  affect  the  principle  laid  down.  This  is 
certainly  meeting  more  than  my  expectations  led  me  to 
anticipate. 

The  only  well  established  law  of  figurative  language 
is,  that  the  figurative  meaning  of  a  word  is  founded  on  a 
likeness  to  its  literal  meaning.  The  manner  of  the  literal 
word  in  its  action,  is  not  to  determine  its  figurative  ac- 
ceptation, for  the  figurative  use  is  not  founded  on  the 
manner  of  the  literal.  For  instance,  a  man  is  said  to  be 
immersed  in  debt.     The  manner  in  which  the  debts  were 


174  THE    TRIAL    OF 

contracted,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  word  immerse.  The 
figurative  use  of  the  word  immerse  here,  represents  what 
the  debts  of  the  man  do  to  him.  This  is  shadowed  forth 
by  the  literal  meaning  of  immerse,  because  there  is  a 
likeness  between  his  state,  and  that  of  a  man  immersed 
in  water.  This  principle  is  invaluable  in  its  application 
to  the  figurative  use  of  baptizo. 

5.  Our  sixth  fact,  which  refers  to  the  object  of  intelli- 
gent legislation,  comes  next  under  his  review.  Here  he 
makes  some  appearance  of  contesting  the  principle  upon 
which  this  "  fact"  is  founded,  by  saying,  "  this  is  gene- 
rally true,  but  it  is  not  well  founded,  to  say  the  manner 
of  executing  these  objects  was  commanded."  His  prin- 
ciple here  laid  down,  is  not  disputed,  viz  : — That  the 
manner  of  executing  a  command  is  not  always  required. 
For  this  reason  we  say,  the  manner  of  immersing  is  not 
required  in  the  law  of  baptism.  But  immersion  is  the 
thing  commanded,  and  it  alone  can  meet  a  leading  object 
in  the  ordinance — a  symbolic  representation  of  Christ's 
burial  and  resurrection.  No  other  action  in  baptism  can 
meet  the  demand  of  this  object. 

The  Counsel  assumes,  without  evidence,  that  immer- 
sion, sprinkling,  &c,  are  only  different  ways  of  baptizing, 
and  that  we  are  left  to  conjecture  what  baptism  is  in  its 
action,  of  which  all  these  are  only  modes.  His  reply  to  the 
question — What  is  baptism  %  amounts  to  this,  that  bap- 
tism is  an  application  of  water,  to  a  suitable  subject,  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity. 

His  answer  is  wholly  gratuitous,  because  he  offers  no 
evidence  to  support  it.     He  relies  too  much   upon  our 


MR.    rEDOBAPTlST.  175 

credulity — our  willingness,  to  believe  without  testimony. 
The  time  has  come  in  this  discussion  to  undeceive  him, 
by  demanding  the  proof  of  his  definition  of  Christian 
baptism.  Until  offered  in  a  veritable  form,  we  are  bound 
to  pass  it  by  unnoticed. 

We  learn  from  the  examples  of  baptizo  given  in  evi- 
dence by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Classic,  that  there  is  no 
water  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  for  it  is  used 
to  denote  an  action  into  any  thing,  that  can  be  pene- 
trated. (See  page  25.)  And  when  used  in  relation  to 
water  or  any  other  thing,  that  can  be  penetrated,  the 
object  said  to  be  baptized,  is  applied  to  the  water  or  thing 
penetrable,  and  not  the  water  or  thing  penetrable,  ap- 
plied to  the  object  baptized.  The  examples  of  baptizo 
in  evidence  clearly  prove  this,  and  this  fact  makes  void 
entirely  the  Counsel's  definition  of  baptism — "  an  appli- 
cation of  water  to  the  subject  of  baptism."  This  fact, 
also,  will  show  how  groundless  is  the  conceit,  of  the 
manner  of  baptizing  as  the  Counsel  represents  it,  because 
all  these  examples  teach  the  thing  done  was  immersion. 
The  manner  in  which  it  was  done  is  not  expressed  by  the 
word  baptizo — all  it  demands  is  an  immersion  ;  with  the 
manner  of  immersion  it  has  no  concern.  It  is  like  the 
command  to  walk,  or  to  read.  The  manner  of  walking 
or  reading  is  not  imported  in  the  words.  Their  manner 
is  represented  by  other  words,  for  instance,  fast,  slow, 
well,  and  badly.  The  command  to  walk,  to  read,  only 
contemplates  these  acts  and  leaves  them  to  be  performed 
in  any  manner.  Let  the  command  in  connection  with 
the  acti"  require  a  manner  of  walking  and  reading,  and 


176  THJ5   TRIAL   Of 

the  command  could  only  be  fulfilled  by  the  act  performed 
in  the  manner  found  in  the  command.  In  the  law  of 
baptism,  we  have  only  the  act  of  immersion  required,  the 
manner  or  mode  of  doing  it,  is  not  required.  If  it  was,  we 
would  be  bound  to  immerse  persons  in  the  way  required. 
This  elucidation  of  the  distinction  between  an  action  and 
its  manner  of  performance,  will  fully  expose  the  Coun- 
sel's ingenious  argument,  concerning  the  manner  of  bap- 
tising ;  because  it  is  just  here  he  throws  dust  in  o-ur  eyes, 
and  then  assumes  an  air  of  triumph,  when  in  fact  he  only 
shows  the  defenceless  character  of  his  position. 

To  help  to  keep  up  the  deception  of  manner  he  calls  to 
his  assistance,  "bathe"  and  "wash."  He  says  these  two 
words  as  used  in  commands  "have  no  manner  of  observ- 
ance required."  The  bathing  he  refers  to,  belonged  to 
the  law  of  Mosesi  The  object  in  the  law  that  required 
bathing,  was  a  specific  one — physical  cleansing,  as  you 
can  see  in  Num.  19 :  8,  17.  The  word  bathe  required  a 
thing  to  be  done — "  to  bathe  the  flesh  in  water," — the 
manner  of  doing  it  is  not  required  in  the  word.  To 
sprinkle  or  pour  a  little  water  upon  the  person  com- 
manded to  bathe  himself,  would  not  have  been  a  fulfil- 
ment of  the  law,  because  the  law  required  him  to  "  bathe 
his  flesh  in  water."  He  also  introduces  the  command 
of  the  Saviour  to  the  blind  man  in  John  9,  to  wash 
in  the  pool.  The  word  wash  here  does  not  signify  that 
the  command  could  have  been  fulfilled  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring  some  of  the  water  of  the  pool  upon  him,  because 
they  are  not  included  in  the  command  given.  The  com- 
mand required  of  him  "to  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam." 


MR.    I'EfcOBAPTIST.  J  77 

The  object  of  the  command  was  intelligent  and  specific. 
"  He  went  his  way,  therefore,  and  washed  and  came  see- 
ing." It  does  not  say  he  went  and  sprinkled  or  poured 
water  upon  himself,  and  "came  seeing."  You  have  here 
as  well  as  in  the  case  of  bathing,  an  exact  fulfilment  of 
the  law. 

The  real  distinction  between  the  two  commands  just 
examined  and  the  action  of  Christian  baptism  is,  the 
former  contemplated  two  specific  effects— physical  cleans- 
ing and  the  seeing  of  the  blind  man  j  the  latter  a  spe- 
cific action  for  a  specific  object — the  putting  on  Christ  by 
respresenting  our  faith  in  his  death,  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. So  Paul  teaches.  It  is  an  equally  baseless  axiom  to 
say,  when  we  find  a  generic  word  representing  a  specific 
effect  of  a  specific  action  in  a  law,  that  all  words  in  law  are 
generic.  This  false  principle  is  without  authority  or  prece- 
dent to  sustain  it ;  but  this  is  the  foundation  of  the  Coun- 
sel's whole  argument.  It  is  the  general  character  of  the 
Divine  laws  to  be  specific  in  their  commands  and  inter- 
dictions. This  fact  is  the  basis  of  our  responsibility. 
The  nature  and  object  of  a  law  certainly  give  a  charac- 
ter to  its  enacting  words,  and  these  words  must  unfold 
in  a  common  light  its  nature  and  object,  to  those  who 
are  to  be  its  subjects.  For  this  reason  we  must  regard 
baptizo  as  signifying  the  act  of  immersing;  for  without 
this  action  being  done,  the  design  of  the  ordinance  can- 
not be  met  according  to  its  original  appointment.  So 
Paul  understood  it,  and  so  did  the  Christian  Fathers  and 
Reformers,  although  the  latter  kept  up  the  innovation  of 
the  Prisoner,  with  their  exceptions  filed  against  it. 


178  THE   TRIAL   Of 

The  Counsel  called  our  attention  to  those  principles  of 
law  which  he  laid  down,  in  his  opening  address  to  the 
Court  and  jury.  It  will  not  do  for  us  to  pass  them  by 
in  silence,  for  fear  there  may  be  capital  made  of  our 
neglect  to  notice  them. 

1.  The  first  consideration  is,  that  baptizo  is  a  Greek 
word.  This  certainly  is  no  new  discovery.  There  has 
not  been  intimated  a  doubt  of  this  fact.  If  it  was  an 
English  word  instead  of  a  Greek  one,  we  would  not  be 
here  contesting  its  meaningo 

2.  His  second  consideration  is,  that  this  word  is  used 
in  the  Greek  only  in  relation  to  common  occurrences  in 
life,  and  not  to  denote  their  religious  washings.  Does 
a  word  lose  its  specific  meaning  because  it  is  not  used 
in  relation  to  every  thing  %  There  is  no  such  principle 
recognized  by  the  laws  of  language.  A  word  does  not 
become  sacred  or  common,  because  of  its  use  in  relation 
to  the  one  or  the  other.  If  the  Counsel  wishes  to  make 
the  impression  in  reference  to  the  use  of  words,  that  they 
are  common  or  sacred  by  use,  (so  I  understand  his  second 
consideration,)  I  must  tell  him  he  is  lamentably  mistaken 
in  this  conception,  for  all  men  recognize  the  principle, 
that  a  word  does  not  lose  its  meaning  when  applied  to 
common  or  sacred  things.  Words  do  not  become  sacred 
or  common  by  use.     This  is  self-evident. 

3.  His  third  consideration  is,  that  the  Jews  used  bap- 
tizo in  relation  to  their  religious  washings.  This  fact 
does  not  alter  its  meaning.  If  they  used  baptizo  with 
a  different  acceptation  from  the  Greeks,  then  this  con- 
sideration would  be  of  moment.      Until  this  supposed 


MR.    PED01MPTIST.  179 

fact  is  in  evidence,  we  have  no  right  to  presume  a  differ- 
ent meaning.  The  Counsel  has  not  attempted  to  prove 
another  meaning.  The  evidence  in  testimony  from 
Greeks  and  Jews  is,  that  baptizo  has  a  common  meaning 
among  them  both,  viz  :  to  immerse. 

4>.  His  fourth  consideration  is,  that  words  change  their 
meaning  in  the  course  of  time.  What  has  this  to  do 
with  baptizo  ?  Nothing  at  all,  unless  he  undertakes  to 
prove  that  baptizo  had  lost  its  primary  meaning,  and  as- 
sumed a  new  meaning  before  it  was  introduced  into  the 
Constitution.  Without  evidence  to  prove  this  assump- 
tion, this  law  of  language  will  afford  him  no  relief  in 
this  controversy.  He  has  made  no  regular  effort  to  prove 
this  baseless  assumption.  Without  evidence  to  support 
it,  even  in  appearance,  you  are  bound  to  take  no  notice 
of  it. 

5.  His  fifth  consideration  is,  that  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo is  to  be  determined  by  its  use  in  the  language,  be- 
fore, and  at  the  time  of  its  appropriation  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism..  In  this  consideration,  he  adopts  one  I  have 
laid  down  in  my  opening  address.  This  fact  presents 
the  issue  before  the  Court  and  jury  in  a  plain  light— 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  at  the  time  of  its  adoption  in  the 
Constitution.  Our  testimony  points  directly  to  this 
period,  and  determines  its  meaning  at  that  time.  On 
this  single  point  we  are  willing  to  rest  the  issue  of  this 
controversy  in  the  light  of  the  testimony  in  evidence. 

6.  His  sixth  consideration  is,  the  manner  of  baptizing 
is  not  commanded.  We  have  so  often  been  called  to 
notice  the  deception  he  here  again  presents,  that  we  have 


180  THE    TRIAL    OF 

concluded  you  do  not  demand  its  exposure,  every  time 
the  Counsel  chooses  to  introduce  it.  Baptizo  signifying 
to  immerse,  from  the  evidence  before  us3  we  have  no  ob- 
jection to  him  saying  the  manner  of  immersing  is  not 
commanded.  We  do  most  seriously  object  to  his  view 
of  baptism,  because  he  makes  it  some  indefinite  thing 
not  to  be  comprehended,  and  gives  immersing,  &c,  as 
modes  of  this  indefinite  thing.  Why  did  he  not  make  a 
logical  effort  to  prove,  that  baptism,  as  commanded, 
could  be  legitimately  performed  by  these  variety  of  modesi 
This  he  knew  to  be  a  hopeless  task.  You  never  hear 
the  New  Testament  writers  speaking  of  modes  of  bap- 
tism. If  they  understood  baptism  as  Pedobaptists  do 
now,  how  shall  we  account  for  their  entire  silence'?  It 
is  impossible  for  Pedobaptists  to  find  a  similarity  of  con- 
duct existing  between  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
and  themselves. 

THE   PRISONER'S   COUNSEL'S   REVIEW   OF   THE    TESTIMONY 
ANSWERED. 

We  will  proceed  to  an  examination  of  the  argument  of 
the  Prisoner's  Counsel,  in  his  review  of  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses.  Before  we  enter  directly  upon  this  scrutiny, 
it  will  be  proper  for  us  to  notice  the  state  of  the  contro- 
versy, as  presented  by  him  in  the  following  language : 
"  That  the  Lawgiver  designed  in  the  Constitution  of  this 
country,by  the  word  baptizo,  to  show  that  only  immersion 
in  water  of  a  lawful  subject,  was  valid  baptism."  We 
cheerfully  admit  this  to  be  a  just  representation  of  the 
issue  joined  by  the  parties  now  in  controversy  before  the 


MR.    PEDOBAFTIST.  1S1 

Court.  The  law  demanded  of  us  the  proof  of  this  pro- 
position. We  cordially  recognized  our  obligation,  and 
have,  by  the  testimony  offered,  fully  met  the  law's  ut- 
most claim  upon  us.  The  evidence  of  this  fact  will  be 
clear  to  all  your  minds,  after  we  have  examined  the  sup- 
posed arguments  offered  by  the  Counsel,  in  his  partial 
examination  of  the  witnesses. 

MR.  CLASSIC. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Clas- 
sic is  confined  to  the  use  of  baptizo  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. All  the  examples  he  gives  of  its  use,  place  its 
signification  to  immerse  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. — 
This  can  be  fully  verified,  by  reading  over  all  the  ex- 
amples found  in  his  testimony.  With  all  the  learning 
and  ingenuity  of  the  Counsel,  he  has  failed  to  find  an 
example  of  baptizo,  not  having  the  controlling  idea  of 
the  object  of  the  action  being  under  the  element.  This 
is  essential  to  the  action  and  its  meaning.  What  capital 
would  the  Counsel  have  made  of  a  solitary  example  of 
baptizo,  without  the  controlling  idea  of  being  under  the 
element,  or  covered  over  by  it  % 

Let  us  look  at  what  would  have  been  our  position,  if 
the  Counsel  had  succeeded  in  finding  several  exceptions 
in  which  baptizo  could  not  signify  to  immerse,  or  to  cover 
over  by  the  element,  where  its  object  is  said  to  be  bap- 
tized. This  supposed  fact,  did  it  exist,  would  not  in  the 
least  militate  against  our  position  in  this  controversy, 
sustained  as  it  is  by  unimpeachable  testimony,  because  it 
is  a  common  occurrence   for  all  words  to  be  used  in  an 


182  THE    TRIAL    OF 

unusual  sense.  This  principle  can  be  exemplified  by  ex- 
amples of  a  thousand  words.  Who  would  be  so  far  for- 
getful of  the  laws  of  language  as  to  say,  the  unusual 
meaning  of  a  word  must  be  taken  when  you  interpret 
positive  enactments  1  Under  these  circumstances  we 
would  appeal,  with  confidence,  to  that  approved  law  of 
interpretation,  which  teaches  that  the  common  or  popu- 
lar meaning  of  words  is  to  be  taken,  when  we  interpret 
positive  duties.  This  law  of  interpretation  we  have 
placed  beyond  a  cavil,  by  Pedobaptist  witnesses. 

Let  us  now  look  a  few  moments  at  the  fearful  conse- 
quences that  would  follow  a  departure  from  the  law  we 
have  named.  The  will  of  the  Lawgiver  would  be  shrouded 
in  mystery  to  the  largest  portion  of  our  race,  because 
they  are  not  acquainted  with  the  unusual  meaning  of 
words.  This  knowledge  would  be  limited  to  men  of 
learning  and  extensive  reading.  Again,  it  would  make 
the  Bible  no  revelation  to  the  multitude.  Its  meaning 
would  be  hid  from  them  forever,  for  want  of  knowledge. 
A  doctrine  that  would  confine  the  knowledge  of  God's 
will  to  only  a  few  persons,  because  of  their  learning  and 
reading,  finds  no  authority  in  God's  Bible,  or  among  the 
standard  Theological  writers  of  this  Commonwealth. 

Our  position  in  this  controversy,  does  not  call  upon  us 
to  plead  the  benefit  of  this  approved  law  of  interpreta- 
tion, because  the  Counsel  has  failed  to  find  exception  in 
Mr.  Classic's  testimony  of  the  use  of  baptizo,  that  would 
in  the  least  justify  any  other  action  in  baptism,  than  im- 
mersion, or  being  covered  entirely  by  the  element. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  attend  to  his  classification,  of 


MR.   I'EDOBAI'TIST.  183 

the  meanings  of  baptizo  in  the  witness's  testimony. 
The  Counsel  says  in  his  classification,  it  signifies  "to  sink, 
to  plunge,  to  immerse  partially,  to  overwhelm,  total  im~ 
mersion,  and  is  used  twice,  by  Hippocrates,  indefinitely." 
The  Counsel  deserves  a  patent  for  this  admirable  classi- 
fication. This  classification  proves  the  following  things: 
1.  The  controlling  idea  in  all  the  words  is,  the  object 
baptized  is  put  under  the  element,  or  is  entirely  covered 
over  by  it.  What  stronger  evidence  could  be  demanded 
to  prove  that  immerse  is  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  when 
the  Counsel  was  compelled  to  select  words  necessarily 
containing  this  idea,  for  to  "sink,"  "plunge,"  "im- 
merse," "  overwhelm,"  &c,  all  contain  it  1 

All  the  words  found  in  his  classification  of  baptizo, 
do  beyond  a  doubt,  prove  that  the  object  said  to  be  bap- 
tized, is  buried  under  the  element,  in  which  he  would 
say  they  are  "sunk,"  "plunged,"  &c.  This  compelled 
homage  paid  to  the  ruling  idea  in  baptizo  by  his  classi- 
fication, shows  unanswerably  how  invulnerable  is  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Classic. 

2.  This  classification  of  baptizo  by  the  Counsel  con- 
tains its  own  refutation,  because  baptizo  is  not  used  in 
the  Greek  language  to  express  "  sink,"  definitely.  The 
word  used  in  the  language  to  express  this  idea  distinctly 
is,  says  Beza  and  Witsius,  «  dunein,  which  is  to  go  down 
to  the  bottom  and  be  destroyed."  They  also  teach,  that 
baptizo  contemplates  that  the  object  sunk  shall  emerge 
again,  and  for  this  reason  these  two  words  ought  not  to 
be  confounded  in  their  meaning.  They  have,  it  is  true, 
a  common  idea  of  being  put  under  the  element,  but  at 


184-  THE    TRIAL    01' 

this  point  they  lose  their  identity.  Sink  remains  under 
the  element  by  the  necessity  of  meaning,  baptizo  has  the 
liberty  of  emerging  again.  Baptizo  sustains  the  same 
relation  to  all  the  other  words  in  this  classification  that 
it  does  to  "  sink,"  except  to  "  plunge"  or  "  immerse." 
The  principle  unfolded  in  this  relation  of  baptizo  to  the 
other  words  in  this  false  classification,  is  simply  this, 
each  of  these  words  has  its  specific  province,  into  which 
the  other  cannot  enter  ;  while  there  is  a  common  pro- 
vince in  which  either  of  them  may  serve.  They  all  ex- 
"press  the  idea  of  being  covered  over  by  the  element,  into 
which  the  object  is  said  to  be  sunk,  &c,  but  they  do  not 
all  contemplate  an  emerging  out  of  the  element,  because 
their  meaning  gives  them  no  such  right.  Baptizo  claims 
this  right  whenever  it  chooses  to  exercise  it. 

3.  The  classification  is  unsustained  by  the  use  of 
baptizo  in  the  language,  and  was  only  made  by  the  Coun- 
sel to  impose  a  false  idea  upon  the  jury,  of  a  variety  of 
meanings  to  the  word.  This  variety  in  the  classification 
is  made  in  order  to  sustain  the  Counsel's  idea  of  a  variety 
of  meanings.  But  in  fact  you  detect  a  uniformity  of 
idea  in  the  words  selected,  and  that  uniform  idea  is  only 
clearly  expressed  by  immerse.  But  for  him  to  have  en- 
closed it  with  its  native  costume,  would,  on  his  part, 
have  been  to  give  up  entirely,  as  far  as  this  witness  was 
concerned,  his  defence  of  the  Prisoner's  conduct.  This 
argument  of  a  variety  of  meanings  is  founded  on  a  false 
classification  ;  and  yet  the  classification  does  not  warrant 
the  argument,  for  the  thing  done  to  the  object  baptized 
in  the  light  of  his  own  classification,  required  a  unifor- 


MR.    1'EVOBAPTIST.  185 

mity  of  action  to  all  the  subjects  of  baptism.  If  you 
wish  to  sink,  plunge,  or  overwhelm  them,  they  must  all 
be  put  under  the  element.  This  shows  his  argument  of 
variety  of  meanings  to  be  deceptive  and  fallacious  and 
only  designed  to  deceive. 

4.  His  own  classification  of  baptizo  fails  to  furnish  a 
single  word  containing  an  idea,  that  looks  by  way  of 
implication  toward  the  practice  of  the  Prisoner.  The 
fact,  that  all  the  examples  of  baptizo  in  the  witness's 
testimony,  did  not  afford  to  sprinkle  and  pour  a  hearing 
even  when  this  classification  was  made,  is  an  unanswer- 
able argument  against  the  Counsel's  position. 

5.  This  classification  says  that  Hippocrates  used  baptizo 
twice  indefinitely.  The  father  of  medicine,  were  he  liv- 
ing, would  meet  this  imputation  with  indignation.  But 
to  meet  the  Counsel  fairly,  we  say,  those  two  examples 
of  baptizo,  of  which  he  speaks,  can  have  no  other  mean- 
ing than  the  examples  that  are  definite,  found  in  his 
writings.  To  these  we  will  now  invite  your  attention. 
He  says:  " Dip  (baptizo)  it  again  in  breastmilk  and 
Egyptian  ointment."  Again  :  "  Shall  I  not  laugh  at  the 
man  who  immerses  (baptisonta)  his  ship  by  overloading 
it,  and  then  complains  of  the  sea  for  ingulfing  it  with  its 
cargo."  These  examples  plainly  show  how  Hippocrates 
understood  baptizo.  To  him  it  had  no  other  meaning 
than  immersion.  The  two  examples  of  baptizo,  referred 
to  in  the  classification,  are  expressed  in  the  same  lan- 
guage. "  He  breathed  as  persons  breathe  after  being 
baptized."  The  peculiarity  of  breathing  after  being  bap- 
tized, is  ihe  striking  feature  noted  as  following  the  im- 


186  THE    TRIAL    OF 

mersion  of  a  person.  This  singularity  of  breathing'  be- 
longs exclusively  to  baptism  by  immersion,  and  not  to 
the  baptism  practised  by  the  Prisoner. 

Hippocrates,  in  his  use  of  bapto  and  baptizo,  in  numer- 
ous and  undoubted  examples,  demands  immersion  as 
their  only  action.  What  right  has  the  Counsel  then  to 
say,  that  he  uses  baptizo  at  any  time  indefinitely,  when 
he  is  clear  and  unquestionable  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word  %  One  thing  is  obvious  to  us  all,  that  the  Counsel 
feared  to  conjecture  a  meaning  for  these  two  occurrences 
of  baptizo.  His  failure  to  do  something  here,  is  a  tacit 
admission,  that  they  could  afford  him  no  assistance  in 
making  up  his  case  for  the  Prisoner. 

6.  The  conclusion  drawn  from  this  classification,  is~ 
not  warranted  by  it,  or  the  facts  connected  therewith. 
We  shall  let  the  Counsel  speak  for  himself:  "This  va- 
riety of  meaning  destroys  the  entire  object  of  his  (Mr. 
Classic's)  testimony,  and  makes  void  the  proscriptive 
ground  on  which  the  prosecution  entirely  depends  to 
convict  the  Prisoner."  He  assumes,  in  this  conclusion, 
the  whole  question  in  controversy,  and  does  this,  too, 
without  the  appearance  of  a  tittle  of  evidence  to  support 
it.  Before  he  has  a  right  to  this  conclusion,  he  must 
prove  clearly,  that  the  idea  of  immersion  is  not  a  legiti- 
mate one,  belonging  to  baptizo  in  the  examples  in  evi- 
dence. Without  this  proof,  his  doctrine  of  a  variety  of 
meanings  for  baptizo,  is  only  a  wild  conjecture,  called 
into  being  for  the  occasion.  You  will  remember  he 
failed  to  make  an  attempt  to  prove  a  variety  of  meaning, 
and  his  own  classification  of  baptizo  will  forever  make 


MR.   PEJJOBAPTIST.  187 

void  his  conclusion ;  for  it  proves  an  invariable  idea  be- 
longs to  baptizo,  namely,  to  be  covered  all  over  by  the 
element  into  which  the  object  is  baptized.  See  how  an- 
tagonistic the  Counsel's  premises  and  conclusions  are. 
The  premises,  as  expressed  in  his  classification ,  teach 
that  an  invariable  idea  belongs  to  baptizo.  His  con- 
clusion teaches  that  a  variety  of  ideas  belong  to  baptizo  ! 
This  single  fact,  so  glaring  in  its  character,  surely 
proves  that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  the  Counsel's 
argument ;  for  we  are  compelled  to  believe,  that  if  his 
premises  are  supported  by  facts,  his  conclusion  there- 
from is  madly  false.  Examine  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Classic  fully  yourselves,  and  see  whether  the  scrutiny  it 
has  passed  through,  has  injured  its  uniformity  and  availa- 
bility for  the  prosecution. 

THE   FIGURATIVE   USE    OF    BAPTIZO   IN    THE    CLASSICS. 

We  are  aware  the  figurative  acceptation  of  baptizo,  as 
found  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Classic,  is  not  to  be  con- 
sulted when  the  positive  institution  of  baptism  is  to  be 
interpreted  as  to  its  action.  But  the  inquiry  that  leads 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  figurative  use  of  baptizo,  is 
legitimate,  when  the  object  of  pursuit  is  its  literal  mean- 
ing. Professor  Stuart,  in  the  numerous  examples  se- 
lected by  him,  and  many  of  which  are  in  testimony  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Classic,  gives  overwhelm  as  the  figurative 
meaning  of  baptizo.  This  figurative  acceptation  is 
founded  on  this  law  of  figurative  language,  that  the  figu- 
rative use  of  a  word  depends  alone  on  the  likeness  there 
is  to  its  literal  meaning.    Overwhelm  being  the  figurative 


188  THE    TRIAL   Ol* 

meaning  of  baptizo,  that  word  must  literally  signify  im- 
mersion, or  it  could  not  be  the  foundation  of  this  figu- 
rative acceptation.  Because  this  is  its  meaning,  we  find 
in  the  figurative  use  a  likeness  to  this  signification  of 
the  literal  word.  Is  it  not  impossible  to  find  in  literal 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  the  foundation  of  "  overwhelm" 
as  their  figurative  meaning!  Why  is  it  sol  Because 
these  actions,  with  their  likeness  in  figurative  use,  find 
no  congeniality  with  overwhelm.  We  are  compelled, 
by  the  force  of  circumstances,  to  trace  the  origin  of  this 
figurative  use  of  baptizo  to  its  literal  use,  signifying  to 
immerse. 

How  Pedobaptists  can  reconcile  their  literal  definitions 
of  baptizo,  to  this  acknowledged  figurative  use,  I  have 
yet  to  learn.  To  my  mind  it  is  beyond  a  consistent  re- 
conciliation, because  their  literal  definitions  afford  no 
ground  for  such  a  figurative  acceptation. 

This  figurative  use  of  baptizo  as  given  by  Pedobaptists 
themselves,  we  claim  affords  us  an  argument  for  immer- 
sion, as  the  literal  meaning,  that  can  never  be  met  or  an- 
swered. Its  light  will  always  point  back  to  immersion 
as  the  foundation  that  gave  it  origin  and  likeness.— 
Their  practice  will  never  afford  the  one  or  the  other. 
Let  them  give  a  justifiable  reason  if  they  can. 

J0SEPHEI7S. 

The  next  witness  reviewed  by  the  Counsel,  is  Mr.  Jo- 
sepheus,  a  Jew.  His  testimony  on  the  import  of  baptizo 
is  clear  and  unquestionable.  We  lay  great  stress  upon 
his  declaration  that  the  word  signifies  immerse,  because 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  189 

he  lived  and  wrote  in  the  days  of  some  of  the  apostles 
of  Christ,  and  from  his  learning  and  acquaintance  with 
the  classic  and  sacred  use  of  baptizo,  he  must  have  known 
its  meaning  beyond  a  doubt.  Baptizo,  in  his  history  of 
the  Jews,  would  have  deceived  his  countrymen,  if  it  was 
used  by  him  in  a  sense  not  common  among  the  Jews. 
We  have  no  right  to  presume  an  unusual  use  by  him, 
until  the  fact  is  proven,  or  that  the  Jews  used  the  word 
with  a  different  signification  from  the  Greeks.  This 
supposed  fact  is  no  where  in  evidence,  but  is  contrary  to 
the  fact  in  evidence,  that  both  Jews  and  Greeks  used 
baptizo  to  signify  to  immerse.  This  deserves  our  serious 
consideration  from  the  fact,  that  during  his  lifetime  our 
Constitution  went  into  practical  operation  among  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  His  position  among  his  countrymen  gave 
him  every  opportunity  of  knowing  the  existence  and 
character  of  our  government,  and  his  use  of  baptizo  at 
this  important  period  in  our  government's  existence, 
shows  unmistakably  its  received  meaning  by  the  Jews. 
The  Counsel  is  found  following  his  classification  of 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  testimony  of  Josepheus. 
We  have  already  shown  that  his  system  of  classification 
is  arbitrary  and  without  foundation  in  the  language,  nor 
is  it  to  be  found  in  the  witness's  testimony.  Let  us  look 
a  moment  at  his  classification  of  this  witness's  testimony. 
It  is  the  following,  "  to  sink,  to  immerse,  to  plunge,  and 
to  overwhelm.''''  Every  one  of  these  words  contemplates 
a  total  immersion !  His  own  classification,  false  as  it  is 
in  principle,  proves  conclusively  that  baptizo  in  the  testi- 
mony of  Josepheus,  contains  the  invariable  idea  of  im- 


190  THE    TRIAL    OF 

mersion,  and  it  offers  not  the  appearance  of  an  apology 
for  sprinkle  or  pour. 

When  the  testimony  of  this  witness  is  taken  in  con- 
nection v/ith  Mr.  Classic's,  it  places  immerse  as  the 
meaning-  of  baptizo  beyond  an  honorable  contest.  The 
evasions  adopted  by  the  Counsel  to  neutralize  the  force 
of  this  testimony,  have  not  the  appearance  of  even  an 
apology  for  an  argument.  His  effort  to  invalidate  the 
definite  character  of  the  testimony  on  the  acceptation  of 
baptizo,  is  a  confirming  argument  of  this  fact,  as  found 
in  his  classification — a  uniformity  of  idea.  It  may  ap- 
pear strange  to  you,  that  we  hold  the  Counsel's  supposed 
argument  to  be  confirmatory  of  the  witness's  testimony. 
Strange  as  this  may  appear,  it  is  too  true  to  be  doubted, 
because  his  classification,  with  all  the  words  it  contains, 
demands  of  subjects  to  be  put  under  the  element  in 
which  they  are  said  to  be  "  sunk,"  &c. 

MR.    LEXICON. 

We  find  the  Counsel  adopting  the  same  kind  of  false 
logic  that  he  employed  in  reviewing  the  testimony  of 
the  former  witnesses,  in  examining  that  of  this  witness. 
We  will  note  the  following  things  to  be  found  in  his  testi- 
mony, which  will  be  an  ample  refutation  of  the  logic 
thrown  around  it  by  the  Counsel : 

1.  All  the  members  of  this  family  were  Pedobaptist, 
as  far  as  their  denominational  character  has  been  ascer- 
tained. From  this  fact,  we  must  expect  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Lexicon,  to  do  all  it  can  to  justify  the  conduct 
of  the  Prisoner,  because  on  the  subject  of  this  contro- 


MR.    PED0BAPT1ST.  191 

versy  their  interests  are  identified.  How  far  their  de- 
nominational prejudices  controlled  their  judgment,  will 
be  developed  during  our  examination  of  the  Counsel's 
review  of  their  testimony.  Many  of  them  we  are  com- 
pelled to  honor  for  their  honesty  and  fidelity,  to  their 
profession  a9  lexicographers. 

2.  That  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  Mr.  Lexicon's  evi- 
dence, to  make  it  reliable  and  certain,  must  be  sustained 
by  examples  of  its  use  in  the  Greek  language.  Any  defi- 
nition offered  by  any  of  this  family,  not  sustained  by 
clear  examples,  must  be  discarded ;  for  the  only  legiti- 
mate business  of  a  lexicographer  is,  to  give  the  meaning 
of  words  as  understood  by  those  who  spoke  and  wrote 
the  language.  This  self-evident  principle  for  the  govern- 
ment of  all  lexicographers  teaches  us  plainly,  that  all 
their  definitions  of  words  must  be  supported  by  use. 
Unless  they  are,  we  are  bound  to  reject  them ;  because 
to  countenance  the  reception  of  gratuitous  meanings  of 
words  without  the  authority  of  use,  is  to  open  a  wide 
door  for  all  forms  of  unbelief.  It  is  the  abuse  of  this 
self-evident  law  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  signification 
of  words,  that  has  led  to  all  the  corruption  of  Christian 
doctrine.  This  fact  should  make  us  watch  with  a  jealous 
eye  every  departure  from  this  sound  principle,  and  repu- 
diate it  with  all  our  hearts  as  hostile  to  the  purity  of 
Christianity. 

3.  These  Lexicons  are  made  up  of  two  classes,  Classic 
and  New  Testament.  They  all  give,  without  exception, 
the  primary  or  popular  meaning  of  baptizo,  to  be  immerse, 
and  they  support  this  meaning  by  many  undoubted  ex- 


192  THE    TRIAL    OF 

amples  of  its  use.  All  these  Lexicons  agree  without  ex- 
ception to  immerse  as  being  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
This  fact  ought  to  settle  the  controversy  forever,  hut  still 
Pedohaptists  refuse  to  submit,  notwithstanding  their  men 
of  learning  depose  to  all  we  demand,  and  place  the  mean- 
ing of  baptizo  in  the  constitutional  law  beyond  a  question. 
4.  The  Counsel  seeks  refuge  in  his  argument  from  im- 
merse as  the  popular  meaning  of  baptizo  by  resorting  to  the 
effects  of  baptizing  or  immersing ;  because  these  effects  are 
found  associated  with  immerse  in  some  of  the  classifica- 
tions of  baptizo  by  some  of  the  Lexicons.  These  effects  are 
"to  cleanse,"  "  to  wash,"  and  "to  purify."  First,  all 
these  words  denote  the  object  of  immersion  when  it  is  for 
cleansing,  washing,  and  purification.  To  say  all  these 
effects  of  immersion  are  proper  meanings  of  the  word,  is 
to  say  what  insanity  alone  could  believe.  Secondly,  these 
effects  of  baptizo  find  no  support  as  meanings  of  the 
actions  from  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  language.  Without 
they  have  this  support,  they  have  no  claim  to  a  hearing 
in  this  controversy.  Thirdly,  the  positions  which  these 
words  do  occupy  in  their  relation  to  baptizo,  are  those  of 
effects  and  not  of  legitimate  significations ;  because  they 
are  designated  in  the  Greek  language  by  words  which 
show  that  they  belong  to  different  families  not  related  to 
baptizo.  You  cannot  confound  these  families  with  bap- 
tizo in  the  language.  The  argument  must  ever  be  false, 
that  makes  baptizo  absorb  these  families  into  its  own, 
and  yet  permits  them  to  occupy  their  native  territory. 
Fourthly,  some  of  the  most  learned  of  these  lexico- 
graphers tell  us  the  reason  why  "  to  cleanse,"  "  to  wash" 


MR.   PEDOEAPTIST.  193 

a~nd  "to  purify,"  are  found  at  the  end  of  some  of  the 
classifications,  "  because  a  thing  is  usually  dipped  or  im- 
mersed in  water,  that  it  may  be  washed,  that  it  may  be 
cleansed."  Let  us  now  give  you  a  few  of  the  authori- 
ties that  fully  support  the  distinction  we  have  made  be- 
tween baptizo  and  its  effects.  Schleusner  says  :  "  Pro- 
perly it  (baptizo)  signifies  I  immerse,  I  dip,  I  immerse 
in  water.  2d.  It  signifies,  I  wash  or  cleanse  by  water — 
because,  for  the  most  part,  a  thing  must  be  dipped  or 
plunged  into  water,  that  it  may  be  washed."  Thus  he 
gives  the  reason  why  baptizo,  figuratively,  means  to  wash, 
because  it  is  frequently  the  effect  of  immersion.  Slokius, 
on  the  New  Testament,  says :  "  Tropically,  and  by  a 
metalepsis,  it  means  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  because  a  thing 
is  usually  dipped  or  immersed  in  water,  that  it  may  be 
washed,  that  it  may  be  cleansed."  Alstedius  says  :  "  It 
signifies  to  immerse,  not  to  wash,  except  by  conse- 
quence." These  testimonies  are  all  in  evidence.  Let 
us  add  to  these  the  testimony  of  Beza,  the  successor  of 
Calvin,  at  Geneva,  He  says :  "  Nor  does  baptizo  signify 
to  wash,  except  by  consequence  ;  for  it  properly  signifies 
to  immerse."  These  Pedobaptist  witnesses,  fully  estab- 
lish all  we  have  said  about  these  effects  of  dipping,  not 
being  proper  significations  of  baptizo.  Remember  these 
witnesses  clearly  show  the  reason  why,  "  to  wash,  to 
cleanse  and  to  purify"  are  given  in  some  of  the  classi- 
fications of  baptizo,  by  some  of  the  members  of  this 
family. — because  they  are  the  effects  of  immersion. 
To  assume  that  a  word  designating  a  specific  action,  as 

baptizo  does,  is  responsible  for  all  the  effects  it  produces, 

9 


184  TEE    TKi.iL    OF 

is  altogether  gratuitous,  and  without  a  tittle  of  authority. 
You  may  take  the  word  "  immerse,"  as  an  example  in 
our  language.  Its  effects  are  numerous  and  contradictory  ; 
for  instance,  cooling,  heating,  cleansing,  washing,  staining, 
&c.  To  say  that  all  these  things  are  included  in  the 
word  immerse,  would  show  a  state  of  madness  incurable 
by  evidence  or  logic.  The  whole  force  of  Pedobaptist 
arguments  for  their  practice,  is  found  in  these  effects  of 
immersion,  and  then  they  labor,  as  the  Counsel  has  done, 
to  make  them  proper  significations  of  baptizo.  His  argu- 
ment on  this  point  is  worth  nothing,  until  he  proves 
these  significations  by  examples  in  the  language.  This 
oortant  undertaking  is  essential  to  his  position,  but  he 
it  unsustained.  The  reason  is,  because  it  was  im- 
possible for  him  to  make  it  good.  We  think  we  have 
fully  shown  and  proven,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that 
the  whole  argument  founded  on  the  effects  of  baptizo,  is 
without  authority,  and  contrary  to  the  facts  in  relation 
to  its  use. 

5.  It  is  evident,  also,  from  the  testimony  of  this  wit- 
ness, that  no  Lexicon,  for  eighteen  hundred  years  from 
the  Christian  era,  gave  to  baptizo  the  signification  of 
sprinkle  or  pour.  This  fact  closes  the  door  against  a 
successful  defence  of  the  Prisoner's  conduct,  because  his 
own  friends,  in  this  witness's  testimony,  gave  no  sanc- 
tion to  his  practice.  If  these  men  of  acknowledged 
learning  and  authority  in  his  own  party,  failed  to  find 
any  use  of  baptizo  in  the  language  justifying  his  conduct, 
the  Counsel's  effort  will  meet  with  no  better  success. 

6.  We  are  now  prepared  to  hear  the  Counsel's  conclu- 


MR.   PEDOBAPTIST,  195 

3ion,  concerning1  Mr.  Lexicon's  testimony.  We  will  let 
him  speak  for  himself:  "  This  position  (of  a  variety  of 
meaning)  clearly  shows  that  baptism  is  a  thing  that  may 
be  done  by  a  variety  of  manner."  We  have  in  this 
language  the  old  evasion — the  manner  of  baptizing.  We 
have  exposed  this  evasion  several  times  during  our  ad- 
dress, by  showing  that  we  are  not  disputing  about  the 
manner  of  baptizing,  but  about  the  action  commanded  by 
the  word  baptizo  in  the  constitutional  law.  The  manner 
in  which  this  action  is  performed,  is  a  question  left  to  all 
to  determine.  The  action  being  immersion — the  manner 
in  which  you  immerse  a  proper  subject  is  a  question  with 
which  we  have  nothing  to  do  at  present.  Mr.  Lexicon's 
testimony  places  any  other  action  of  baptism,  than  im- 
mersion, out  of  the  question.  This  testimony  in.  no  way 
teaches,  that  a  variety  of  actions  constitute  what  we  call 
baptism,  or  belong  to  baptizo  in  the  ordinance. 

MR.    TRANSLATOR'S    TESTIMONY, 

We  are  now  called  upon  to  look  at  the  review  which 
this  witness's  testimony  received  from  the  Counsel : 

1.  The  Counsel  failed  to  notice  the  facts  stated  by  the 
witness,  in  relation  to  the  ancient  translations  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  therefore  he  offered  no  particular  objec- 
tions to  this  part  of  his  testimony.  The  exhibition  of 
the  ancient  translations  proved  clearly,  that  the  transla- 
tors understood  baptizo  in  its  sacred  acceptation  to  signify 
to  immerse,  and  so  translated  it.  They  are  not  found 
in  a  solitary  instance  translating  it  by  sprinkle  or  pour. 
These  two  things  in  this  part  of  his  evidence  are  sigmfi- 


196  THE    TRIAL    ©F 

cant,  and  show  that  the  translators  found  nothing  in  the 
Scriptures  relating  to  baptizo,  that  would  justify  or  coun- 
tenance the  conduct  of  the  Prisoner.  You  will  find  in 
reading  over  this  part  of  the  testimony,  a  united  under- 
standing of  baptizo  in  the  law  of  baptism,  and  that  by 
the  words  by  which  they  translate  baptizo  they  show 
forth  unanimously  that  its  meaning  is  to  immerse.  It 
also  gives  you  the  authorities  by  which  we  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  words  they  use  to  translate  baptizo.  We 
shall  say  no  more  on  this  part  of  his  testimony,  because 
the  Counsel,  by  his  silence,  signified  it  was  all  against 
the  Prisoner,  and  in  favor  of  the  prosecution. 

2.  We  are  more  particularly  invited  to  that  part  of 
the  testimony  that  refers  to  the  English  translation  of 
the  Scriptures.  To  estimate  it  justly  we  must  take  the 
following  facts  into  consideration  :  (1)  The  translators 
selected  for  this  work  by  king  James,  were  all  Pedobap- 
tists.  (2)  They  were  commanded  by  the  same  authority 
not  to  translate  the  old  ecclesiastical  words,  among 
which  was  baptizo.  (3)  They  are  found,  for  the  reason 
stated,  refusing  to  translate  baptizo  when  connected  with 
the  Christian  ordinance.  (4)  We  must  expect  them,  as 
Pedobaptists,  to  favor  the  practice  of  the  Prisoner  if  they 
can.  (5)  Under  no  circumstances  do  we  find  them  trans- 
lating baptizo  by  sprinkle  or  pour,  whether  connected 
with  the  ordinance  or  not.  These  considerations  are  all 
in  evidence,  and  they  must  be  taken  into  account  when 
you  pass  your  judgment  on  this  part  of  the  testimony. 

3.  These  translators  did  translate  the  first  occurrence 
of  baptizo  in  the  Scriptures  found  in  2  King,  5 :   14,  by 


MR.  FEDOBAPTIST.  197 

dip:  "And  JVaaman  went  down  and  dipped  himself 
(ebaptisato)  seven  times  in  Jordan.  In  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures this  act  of  Naaman  is  designated  by  taval,  its 
usual  word  for  dipping  or  immersing.  The  Greek  trans- 
lation by  the  Seventy,  translate  taval  by  abaptisato,  both 
of  these  words  having  the  signification  of  dipping. — 
The  German  translation  of  this  word  by  Luther  is  tauff, 
which  he  in  his  testimony  in  evidence  says  signifies  to 
immerse.  Professor  Stuart  translates  abaptisato  by 
"plunged."  All  these  translations  of  this  passage  agree, 
that  baptizo  signifies  to  dip  or  to  immerse.  This  agree- 
ment can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  the 
obvious  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  immerse.  This  should 
be  evident  from  this  fact,  that  the  English  translators, 
the  German  translator,  and  Professor  Stuart,  were  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  their  denominational  interests  demanded  of 
them  an  indefinite  translation  of  baptizo  instead  of  a 
specific  one.  But  the  force  of  the  passage  and  the  specific 
character  of  baptisato  overcame  all  their  denominational 
predilections,  and  therefore  we  have  this  translation. — 
If  abaptisato  must  have  this  specific  meaning  in  this  pas- 
sage, the  same  law  must  demand  the  same  signification 
to  be  given  to  it  wherever  it  is  found  in  the  Scriptures  ; 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  connection  it  sustains  to 
other  words,  demands  a  departure  from  this  meaning. 
This  supposed  necessity  can  never  be  proven  by  them  ; 
for  wherever  you  find  baptizo  in  the  Scriptures,  you  can 
always  substitute  immerse  in  its  place,  and  it  will  always 
make  good  sense.  This  incontestable  fact  warrants  and 
justifies  the  above  translation.     You  may  try  any  word 


198  THE    TRIAL    OF 

offered  by  Pedobaptists,  and  used  by  them  as  a  transla- 
tion of  baptizo  to  justify  their  practice,  by  this  law  of 
substitution,  and  you  will  find  that  their  substitution  will 
faii  to  make  good  sense,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  legiti- 
mately employed.  There  is  a  self-evident  principle 
governing  all  languages,  that  authorizes  the  substitution 
at  all  times  of  words  of  the  same  import,  one  for  the 
other,  and  when  substituted  they  always  make  good  sense. 
It  is  also  self-evident  that  if  you  substitute  words  of 
different  families  in  one  language  representing  certain 
ideas,  for  words  of  another  family  in  another  language 
representing  different  ideas,  that  they  will  not  agree,  and 
the  conclusion  is  unavoidable,  that  in  this  relation  they 
will  not  make  good  sense.  It  is  by  the  power  of  these 
principles  we  test  all  the  words  offered  as  translations  of 
baptizo.  The  only  words  offered  that  meet  the  approval 
of  their  judgment  are  those  presented  by  Mr.  Baptist — 
immerse,  plunge,  and  dip.  These  are  approved,  be- 
cause they  are  significant  of  a  common  idea.  All  the 
words  offered  by  Mr.  Pedobaptist  are  condemned,  be- 
cause they  cannot  be  substituted  for  baptizo,  and  make 
good  sense.  These  words  are  sprinkle,  pour,  purify, 
wash,  and  cleanse.  It  would  be  well  for  you  at  your 
leisure  to  make  all  these  words  pass  through  the  trial 
which  these  principles  demand,  and  thus  test  their  sound- 
ness. We  are  willing  to  abide  the  issue  of  such  a  trial. 
4.  The  Counsel  relies  with  confidence  upon  that  part 
of  this  witness's  testimony,  where  you  find  he  translates 
baptizo  by  the  word  wash,  in  several  instances  where  it 
is  unconnected  with  the  Christian  ordinance.     For  this 


MR.   FEUGBAi'TIST.  199 

translation  he  gives  no  authority,  without  which  it  can 
have  no  claim  upon  our  attention.  We  know  this  trans- 
lation of  the  word  in  the  places  named  in  his  testimony- 
is  without  authority,  and  contrary  to  authority.  This 
fact  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations  in  evi- 
dence. First.  The  word  baptizo,  per  se.  has  not  the 
idea  of  water  in  it.  The  examples  of  its  use  in  evi- 
dence, conclusively  prove  this  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 
Secondly.  The  authorities  in  evidence  teach,  that  wash  is 
only  an  effect  of  baptizo  when  it  is  used  for  washing. 
This  effect  can  never  be  a  proper  meaning  of  the  word. 
Thirdly,  it  is  opposed  to  the  law  of  substitution,  because 
you  cannot  uniformly  substitute  "wash"  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  a  translation  of  baptizo,  and  with  it  make  good 
sense  in  the  relations  it  is  thus  compelled  to  sustain  to 
other  words.  You  may  test  this  substitution  in  its  ap- 
plication to  that  passage  of  Scripture  in  which  Christ's 
sufferings  are  represented  by  baptizo.  These  sufferings; 
find  no  relation  to  the  idea  of  washing,  which  follows 
its  substitution  here.  You  may  try  it  again  by  substi- 
tuting wash  for  baptizo  in  Rom.  6.  These  trials  will 
show  you  that  wash  is  not  a  translation  of  baptizo. 
Fourthly.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact  found  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, that  wash  forms  a  distinct  and  separate  family 
from  bapto,  and  at  the  head  of  its  family  is  luou.  And 
this  family  of  words  is  used  to  express  a  distinct  class 
of  ideas  in  the  language  peculiarly  its  own,  and  which 
do  not  belong  to  baptizo.  In  their  use  in  the  Scriptures 
they  are  not  confounded.  Luou  is  never  used  in  the 
Scriptures  where  baptizo  is  demanded  to  express  the  ac 


200  THE   TRIAL   OF 

tion.  These  two  words  are  found  in  the  same  verse  ex~ 
pressing  two  separate  and  distinct  things,  for  instance 
where  it  reads,  "  he  washed  their  stripes ;  and  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his,  straightway."  The  two  things  here 
said  to  be  performed  are  expressed  by  these  two  words 
and  are  not  confounded,  because  the  words  are  not  the 
same  in  meaning  or  convertible.  All  that  can  be  made 
out  by  evidence  in  relation  to  luou  and  baptizo  in  their 
intercourse  with  each  other,  is  this  :  there  is  a  common 
province  into  which  they  both  may  enter,  when  immer- 
sion is  the  action,  and  there  is  a  native  province  that  is 
peculiar  to  each,  into  which  the  other  dare  not  enter. 
Luou  is  essentially  generic  in  its  character,  and  baptizo  is 
essentially  specific  in  its  aetion.  The  use  of  these  two 
words  in  the  language  proves  this  statement.  To  test 
its  truthfulness  examine  all  the  examples  of  their  use 
in  the  language,  and  they  will  fully  demonstrate  the 
above  distinction.  Fifthly.  This  translation  in  these 
few  occurrences  of  baptizo,  will  not  warrant  the  practice 
of  the  Prisoner,  because  the  washing  refers  to  the  whole 
person,  and  the  manner  of  its  performance  is  illustrated 
in  the  conduct  of  Naaman  by  dipping  himself  in  Jordan. 
All  know  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  not  usual  modes 
(or  modes  at  all)  of  washing,  according  to  the  use  of 
this  word  in  the  Greek  language,  because  luou  refers  to 
the  whole  body,  and  not  as  do  those  actions  to  only  a 
partial  application. 

5.  The  Counsel's  conclusion,  drawn  from  this  wit- 
ness's testimony,  is,  that  wash  would  be  a  good  substi- 
tute  in  English  for  baptizo  in  Greek.     This  substitution 


mr.  rsDOBAriisT.  201 

we  have  already  shown  to  be  incorrect.  If  the  Saviour 
ntended  wash  to  be  the  action  performed  in  the  ordi- 
nance which  He  appointed,  He  would  have  selected  luou, 
which  all  know  signifies  in  English,  to  wash.  The 
name  of  the  ordinance  would  then  have  been  washing, 
instead  of  baptism.  Or  if  He  desigsed  only  a  partial 
application  of  water  to  the  subjects,  then  nipto  would 
have  been  selected  as  the  word  to  denote  the  thing  to  be 
done.  The  fact  that  the  Saviour  passed  by  the  words 
that  denote  washing,  and  those  that  denote  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  and  selected  baptizo  to  indicate  the  act  in 
baptism,  is  significant,  and  can  only  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fact,  that  its  action  alone  could  denote  the  design  of 
the  institution. 

JEWISH   PROSELYTE    BAPTISM. 

We  offered,  said  the  Counsel,  a  number  of  Pedobaptist 
witnesses  to  prove  the  manner  in  which  the  Jews  bap- 
tized their  proselytes.  Their  testimony  places  beyond  a 
cavil  or  doubt  the  practice  of  immersion  by  them,  when 
they  introduced  proselytes  into  their  fellowship.  The 
Counsel  passes  by  the  evidence  of  this  fact  without  no- 
tice. His  death-like  silence,  can  only  be  interpreted  as 
admitting  that  the  practice  of  the  Jews  in  baptism,  was 
only  immersion. 

His  testimony  refutes  completely,  the  cavil  that  baptizo 
among  the  Jews  had  a  different  signification  from  that 
which  it  had  among  the  Greeks.  Pedobaptists  are  ready 
to  admit  it  signifies  immerse  among  the  Greeks,  but  not 
among  the  Jews.     This  testimony  proves  their  assump- 


202  TtfE   TRIAL   Of 

tion  to  be  baseless  and  unsupported,  by  showing  a  Com* 
mon  understanding  among  Jews  and  Greeks.  There  is 
no  resisting  this  testimony.  There  is  nothing  offered  to 
oppose  it.  It  fully  accounts  for  Mr.  Josephus's  em- 
phatic declaration  that  baptizo  signifies  only  to  immerse* 
Until  there  is  found  in  the  Jewish  practice  of  baptism, 
something  favorable  to  the  practice  of  the  Prisoner,  we 
are  bound  by  every  law  of  evidence,  to  believe  that  they 
understood  baptism  in  no  other  sense  than  that  of  im- 
mersion. 

INDEPENDENT    WITNESSES. 

We  offered  a  class  of  independent  witnesses,  whose 
denominational  character  we  did  not  inquire  into.  They 
were  men  of  undoubted  learning  and  authority.  Their 
testimony  proves  two  things.  First.  That  baptizo  sig- 
nifies to  immerse  in  the  classic  and  Jewish  acceptation  of 
the  word.  Secondly.  That  immersion  in  baptism  was 
the  practice  of  the  ancient  church.  These  two  facts  are 
more  than  our  defence  demands^  and  they  accord  then* 
to  us  with  a  cheerful  cordiality.  In  consulting  the  his- 
tory of  these  witnesses,  you  will  find  they  had  no  inter- 
est to  subserve  in  giving  this  honest  testimony.  It  fully 
illustrates  the  force  of  truth  and  evidence  over  the  hu» 
man  mind,  making  it  to  rise  above  party  feeling. 

PEDOBAPTIST    WITNESSES. 

We  called  this  class  of  witnesses  to  the  stand,  to  prove 
that  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  constitutional  law  is 
to  immerse.     These  witnesses  were  Reformers,  Common 


Mft.    I'EDOBHTlST.  203 

tators,  <fec.  We  classified  them  in  the  following  orders 
1.  German  witnesses,  commencing  with  Luther,  and 
closing  with  the  most  learned  Germans  of  this  genera* 
tion.  2.  Presbyterian  witnesses,  beginning  with  Calvin^ 
and  closing  with  Chalmers.  3.  Episcopal  witnesses  of 
eminent  ability,  and  of  high  official  position  in  the 
church  of  which  they  were  members.  4.  Roman  Catho- 
lic witnesses  of  character  and  authority  in  their  commu* 
nion.  5.  Armenian  Professors  of  notoriety  and  learn- 
ing. 6.  Miscellaneous  witnesses  of  undoubted  charac= 
ter  and  influence.  These,  in  number,  constitute  a  host 
of  the  friends  of  the  Prisoner,  but  stand  to  all  We  have 
demanded  at  their  hands  on  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  dispute.  To  estimate  justly  the  weight  of  their  testi* 
mony,  the  following  things  must  be  taken  into  considera^ 
tion.  (1)  That  these  witnesses  lived  when  sprinkling  and 
pourings  as  actions  of  baptism,  were  popular  in  their  sev- 
eral communions.  (2)  They  were  the  friends  of  the 
Prisoner,  and  opposed  to  Mr.  Baptist.  (3)  We  only 
called  upon  them  to  testify  to  a  fact — the  meaning  of 
baptize-  in  the  Constitution.  (4)  Their  opinions  con* 
cerning  what  would  answer  as  well  as  immersion  in  bap- 
tism, do  not  legitimately  come  before  this  tribunal  for  a 
decision.  The  Court  you  remember  refused  to  admit 
the  opinion  of  Calvin  on  this  subject,  and  placed  that 
refusal  upon  a  ground  that  is  unanswerable.  (5)  The 
evidence  necessary  to  overcome  their  educational  preju= 
dice  and  denominational  interests  against  immersion,  as 
the  baptism  commanded  in  the  Constitution,  must  have 
been  invulnerable^  otherwise  they  Would  not  have  been 


'204  THE   TRIAL  ol- 

found  testifying  against  their  own  practice.  (6)  The 
reason  offered  by  some  of  them  for  their  present  practice j 
find  for  a  change  from  the  practice  authorized  by  the  con- 
stitutional law,  is  that  the  difference  of  country  and 
climate  demands  it.  All  these  important  facts,  with 
others  we  shall  name,  ought  to  be  taken  into  account, 
when  we  come  to  ascertain  the  force  of  their  testimony. 
There  is  another  aspect  of  their  testimony  to  be  con- 
templated ;  that  is,  it  is  the  testimony  of  opposers  and 
not  of  friends  in  this  trial.  This  fact  proves  that  their 
testimony  is  a  voluntary  tribute  to  truth,  and  not  called 
forth  by  any  interest  they  had  in  the  triumph  of  the 
prosecution.  The  fact  that  their  testimony  meets  all 
the  demands  of  Mr.  Baptist's  charge  against  Mr.  Pedo- 
Baptist,  should  be  to  us  all  the  surest  guarantee  of  the 
Prisoner's  guilt.  If  these  were  the  only  witnesses  called 
to  testify  for  the  Commonwealth,  their  evidence,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  law,  would  be  sufficient  to  place  the 
acquittal  of  the  Prisoner  beyond  a  reasonable  expectation. 

KEPLY  TO  THE  COUNSEL'S  REVIEW. 

The  Counsel's  review  of  these  witnesses'  testimony, 
is  so  indefinite  in  its  character,  that  it  is  almost  impos- 
sible for  us  to  join  a  fair  issue  with  him.  His  remarks 
are  altogether  declamatory.  We  shall,  however,  seek  to 
meet  his  most  prominent  assumptions. 

1.  That  their  testimonies  "are  based  on  a  common 
principle — that  no  particular  manner  of  baptizing  was 
commanded."  He  signifies  here  by  "  manner  of  bap- 
tizing" what  we  have  repeatedly  exposed  as  an  evasion 


Mft.  PED*i3APTiST.  203 

Or  deception  designed  to  teach  that  baptizo  in  the  law  sig* 
frifies  immersion,  sprinkling,  and  pouring.  The  truth  is, 
the  common  principle  unfolded  ii>  the  testimony  of  these 
witnesses  is,  that  baptizo  in  the  constitutional  law  signi- 
fies to  immerse,  and  therefore  it  can  never  by  any  show 
of  reason  he  a  manner  of  itself.  The  Counsel's  princi- 
ple adapted  to  deceive  us,  finds  no  support  from  the  tes- 
timony, but  is  made  void  by  it.  Did  we  not  call  them 
to  testify  to  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  law!  They 
met  the  question  with  an  honorable  answer.  That  an- 
swer supports  not  the  principle  of  the  Counsel,  but 
meets  it  with  an  indignant  repudiation. 

Why  did  not  the  Counsel  make  a  fair  issue  by  saying, 
that  immersion  was  not  commanded  when  baptizo  was 
incorporated  in  the  institution,  and  that  so  the  witnesses 
testified  1  This  he  knew  too  well  to  be  a  hopeless  under- 
taking in  the  light  of  the  facts  in  evidence,  and  the 
character  of  these  witnesses'  testimony.  We  could  have 
refuted  his  whole  position  by  merely  reading  over  what 
Luther  and  Calvin  said  on  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the 
Constitution.  He  knew  his  evasive  mod&  of  argumenta- 
tion gave  him  his  only  hope  to  deceive  the  jury  and 
public.  The  fact  that  his  cause  affords  him  no  better 
defence  of  his  client,  ought  to  be  conclusive  evidence  to 
all  of  the  hopeless  weakness  of  the  position  he  is  striving 
to  defend. 

2.  The  Counsel's  next  assumption  is  his  law  of  evi- 
dence, expressed  in  the  following  words  :  "  That  when  a 
witness  is  called  to  testify  for  a  party,  the  party  is  bound 
to  receive  his  whole  testimony."     This  is  what  we  are 


^06  THE   TRIAL    Of 

doing  with  this  class  of  witnesses.  We  called  them  to 
the  stand  to  testify  to  a  fact — the  signification  of  haptizo 
in  the  Constitution,  and  this  is  the  extent  of  their  power 
to  testify. 

We  do  not  receive  their  opinions  of  baptism,  because 
it  is  not  competent  to  receive  the  opinions  of  witnesses 
as  evidence,  when  the  question  is  one  of  fact  and  not  of 
opinion.  See  the  injustice  and  fearful  results  that  would 
follow  the  admission  of  witnesses'  opinions  as  evidence. 
One  class  would  teach  that  water  baptism  was  not  to  be 
practised  under  the  Constitution  5  another  class  would 
teach  that  water  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins  5 
another  class,  that  you  have  a  right  to  change  the  action 
of  baptism,  to  suit  your  views  of  country  and  climate! 
Are  all  these  opinions  on  baptism  to  be  received  as 
evidence!  They  are  repudiated  singly  by  a  majority  of 
most  of  the  denominations  of  Christians.  Try  by  this 
principle  any  other  Christian  doctrine — for  instance,  the 
divinity  of  Christ  3  the  duration  of  future  punishment ;  the 
existence  of  the  soul  in  an  intermediate  state  after  death, 
until  the  resurrection ;  the  form  of  church  govern* 
ment,  &c.  To  place  the  climax  on  this  absurdity,  its  ap- 
plication admitted,  would  subvert  the  divine  authority  of 
Christianity.  This  lamentable  result  would  necessarily 
follow  the  admission  of  the  opinions  of  witnesses  as  evi* 
dence,  when  a  simple  question  of  fact  is  the  subject  of 
inquiry.  We  repudiate  all  opinions,  when  we  inquire 
after  constitutional  facts.  Facts  alone  have  to  do  with 
our  government  in  this  country.  This  elucidation  of 
our  conduct,  will  prove  that  we  have  rigidly  complied 


ftii.  FMboMpfl&r.  2"0f 

With  this  rule  of  evidence  during  our  examination  of 
these  witnesses ;  and  it  will  also  prove,  that  the  Coun- 
sel in  his  questions  to  these  witnesses,  violated  this  rule 
of  evidence  flagrantly,  and  his  mode  of  argument  only 
seeks  to  walk  in  this  interdicted  pathway. 

You  find  him  laboring  to  make  capital  out  of  a  law 
of  evidence,  which  we  have  observed  to  its  letter,  by 
making  the  impression  that  we  rejected  material  facts  in 
their  testimony.  Did  not  the  Court  decide,  that  any 
fact  could  be  admitted  which  related  to  the  meaning  of 
baptizo  in  the  law  1  Under  the  operation  of  this  decision 
we  have  been  conducting  the  whole  trial. 

Let  us  notice  the  rebutting  testimony  offered  by  the 
Counsel  to  that  of  these  Pedobaptist  witnesses.  Why 
offer  rebutting  testimony  from  other  Pedobaptist  wit- 
nesses, if  those  we  offered  did  not  meet  the  demand  of 
the  prosecution,  as  the  Counsel  was  found  urging  zeal- 
ously in  his  address  1  This  fact  throws  around  his  con- 
duct a  suspicion,  that  his  argument  and  conduct  are  an- 
tagonistic. It  is  not  for  me  to  reconcile  them.  He  de- 
scribes the  character  of  his  witnesses  in  the  following 
language  :  They  are  "  men  of  undoubted  learning  and 
character."  This  may  all  be  true  of  them,  and  yet  prove 
nothing.  Let  us  now  hear  the  conclusion  he  draws  from 
their  testimony  :  "  They  say  that  baptism,  as  a  Christian 
ordinance,  contemplates  a  variety  of  manner."  A  variety 
of  manner  of  baptizing  does  not  touch  our  position,  if 
they  mean  a  variety  of  ways  of  immersing.  But  this  is 
not  his  meaning.  He  holds  that  a  variety  of  distinct 
and  different  actions  are  modes  of  baptism.    The  follow- 


2QS  tlf£   TRIAL  Of 

ing  things  are  important  to  be  noticed  in  relation  to 
their  testimony.  1.  They  are  all  modern  Pedobaptists> 
who  have  made  themselves  active  partisans  in  this  con- 
troversy. The  Counsel  might  just  as  well  have  called 
the  Prisoner  upon  the  witness  stand,  to  testify,  as  these 
witnesses.  2.  These  witnesses  fail  to  sustain  with 
authorities  any  other  meaning  to  baptizo,  than  to  im- 
merse. Read  their  testimony  over  carefully,  and  you 
will  find  what  we  say  to  be  a  certain  verity.  Without 
authorities  sustaining  their  significations  of  baptizo,  they 
have  no  claim  upon  our  attention.  3.  Their  testimony, 
if  we  dare  give  it  that  name,  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  their  opinions  offered  to  subserve  the  cause  of  Pe- 
dobaptism.  4.  You  dare  not  receive  their  opinions  as 
evidence,  and  reject  the  fact  testified  to  by  those  Pedo- 
baptists,  whom  we  have  offered  to  testify  to  a  fact  op- 
posed to  their  own  practice.  They  honestly  testified  to 
the  truth,  and  gave  their  reasons  for  their  practice.  The 
real  character  of  this  rebutting  testimony  is,  a  dogmatic 
assumption  of  a  meaning  for  baptizo,  unknown  to  the 
classic  or  sacred  use  of  the  word.  The  object  sought  to 
be  subserved  thereby  is,  to  hide  the  guilt  of  the  Prisoner, 
and  offer  a  defence  for  their  own  disloyalty  to  the  law  of 
baptism. 

Let  us  note  a  fact  that  came  to  light  during  the  cross- 
examination  of  two  of  these  witnesses.  Drs.  Hill  and 
Clark,  both  testify  to  the  fact,  that  baptism  was  a  sym- 
bolic representation  of  Christ's  death,  burial  and  resur- 
rection. We  introduce  the  language  of  one  of  them  as 
proof  of  this.     "  But   they  (believers)  receive  baptism 


MB.    PEDOBAPTIST.  200 

as  an  emblem  of  death  in  voluntarily  going  under  the 
water ;  so  they  receive  it  as  an  emblem  of  the  resurrec- 
tion unto  eternal  life,  in  coming  up  out  of  the  water  5 
thus  they  are  baptized."  The  symbolic  character  of 
baptism  demands,  as  the  witness  teaches,  immersion  in 
water  as  its  action.  This  action  being  designated  by 
baptizo,  it  must  of,  necessity  signify  to  immerse.  With 
all  the  perverseness  manifested  by  these  deeply  interested 
witnesses,  we  haye  extorted  from  some  of  them  the  un- 
willing fact,  that  immersion  was  baptism  in  primitive 
times.     This  is  all  we  need,  to  make  our  defence  good. 

4.  The  Counsel's  appeal  to  the  jury,  in  relation  to  the 
loyalty  of  his  witnesses  to  the  Constitution  of  the  coun- 
try. This  is  the  very  subject  we  are  called  upon  to  try. 
Until  the  verdict  of  the  jury  is  made  up  and  proclaimed 
to  the  nation,  his  appeals  are  untimely  and  out  of  place. 
It  is  also  in  vain  for  him  to  appeal  to  you  about  the  effi- 
ciency of  their  substitution  of  sprinkling  and  pouring  as 
modes  of  baptism,  in  place  of  immersion  as  its  only 
action  originally  commanded.  The  only  question  pro- 
perly before  us  at  this  time  is,  what  did  the  Lawgiver  in 
the  Constitution  intend  to  be  done  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  when  he  employed  baptizo  to  designate  its  ac- 
tion. On  this  single  inquiry  turns  the  whole  controversy. 
Do  not  our  witnesses  fully  meet  this  single  inquiry  1 
We  answer,  fully. 

FRIENDS    OR    QUAKERS. 

The  Counsel  in  reviewing  the  testimony  of  these  wit- 
nesses? treats  them   with  indignity,  and  their  authority 


210  -  THE    TKIAL    OF 

with  contempt.  He  asks  the  following  grave  question  in 
relation  to  tbem.  "What  right  have  they  to  appear  here 
before  the  Court  and  jury  to  testify  V3  We  answer  in 
the  language  of  our  law,  they  have  the  same  rights  which 
are  common  to  all  our  citizens.  There  is  a  feature  in 
their  character,  that  should  recommend  them  to  us  all  as 
witnesses.  They  are  not  committed  in  their  sentiments 
and  practice  to  either  of  the  parties  in  this  controversy. 
Witnesses  of  this  character  are  always  reliable  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Court.  Let  us  now  hear  the  Counsel's 
reason  for  the  rejection  of  their  testimony.  "  They,  in 
sentiment  and  practice,  deny  the  constitutional  obliga- 
tion of  water  baptism."  This  fact  does  not  affect  their 
competence  as  witnesses  to  a  fact,  the  meaning  of  bap- 
iizo  in  the  law.  This  is  the  only  fact  they  were  called 
to  testify  to.  As  to  their  faith  and  practice  referred  to 
by  the  Counsel,  they  are  not  as  injurious  to  our  country's 
weal,  as  the  sentiments  and  practice  of  some  of  his  most 
reliable  witnesses.  For  these  latter,  like  the  Prisoner, 
with  the  profession  of  obedience  make  void  by  their  tra- 
dition the  action  of  baptism  commanded.  The  reason  that 
would  reject  the  one  ought  to  reject  the  other.  The  dif- 
ference between  these  two  class  of  witnesses  is  this : 
The  Friends  testify  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the 
law ;  the  other  class,  to  what  they  suppose  ought  to  be 
its  meaning,  to  suit  their  practice. 

The  Counsel  admits  their  testimony  to  be  unanswera- 
ble in  this  language,  "  the  testimony  amounts  to  a  dog- 
matic assumption  of  the  meaning  of  baptism  being  im- 
mersion."    The  authorities  they   offered  to  sustain  it, 


M».  PEPOBAPTIST.  211 

make  it  as  truly  dogmatic  as  any  other  fact  proven.  It 
was  impossible  for  the  Counsel  to  meet  it.  In  this  fact 
is  to  be  found  the  reason  of  his  indignation.  5fou  will 
give  their  testimony  an  honest  estimate,  and  that  is  all 
we  ask. 

REPLY  TO  DR.  SCHMUCKER. 

Now  will  properly  come  under  our  review  the  argu- 
ments of  the  Counsel  on  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament, 
with  the  circumstances  connected  with  its  action.  He 
read  and  adopted  the  argument  of  Professor  Schmucker 
on  this  subject,  found  in  his  Popular  Theology,  p.  263. — 
The  adoption  of  the  argument  as  his  own,  was  a  tacit 
admission  of  the  Counsel's  inability  to  manage  this  part 
of  the  defence  of  the  Prisoner's  conduct  plausibly.  We 
will  proceed  to  an  examination  of  the  Professor's  argu- 
ment. 

1.  The  question  proposed  by  the  Doctor — "Whether 
immersion  is  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  and  consequently 
is  one  essential  part  of  baptism."  This  question  can  only 
be  legitimately  answered  by  making  this  inquiry,  What 
was  the  received  meaning  of  baptizo  at  the  time  the 
Saviour  employed  it  in  the  institution  of  baptism  1  This 
point  must  first  be  settled  by  competent  witnesses,  before 
we  can  form  an  intelligent  judgment,  and  offer  a  proper 
answer  to  the  question  proposed.  Had  the  Doctor  sus- 
pended his  judgment  of  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  until  he 
placed  before  his  readers  the  authorities  on  which  he 
claimed  the  right  to  answer  the  question,  we  would  have 
no  just  ground  of  complaint,  For  want  of  these  author!- 


212  THE   TRIAL   OF 

ties  in  evidence,  it  is  our  province  to  protest  against  his 
answer.  Answer  the  question  he  will.  Patience  on  our 
part  demands  submission. 

2.  The  answer  he  gives  to  this  question  may  be  found 
in  the  following  language:  "  On  this  subject  the  Luthe- 
ran church  has  always  agreed  with  the  majority  of 
Christian  denominations,  in  maintaining  the  negative." 
Before  his  negation  is  worth  a  single  straw  in  this  con- 
troversy, he  is  bound  to  show  that  the  authorities  relied 
upon  to  prove  that  baptizo  in  the  Constitution  only  signi- 
fies to  immerse,  are  defective  and  insufficient.  This  de- 
fence of  the  meaning  of  baptizo  is  passed  by  in  silence. 
This  authorized  mode  of  proceeding  is  not  adopted  by 
him,  but  he  is  found  adopting  one  that  in  our  judgment 
is  calculated  to  mislead  the  public  mind,  that  is,  to  argue 
from  a  supposed  impossibility  of  this  meaning.  This 
mode  of  argumentation,  adopted  by  him,  will  be  attended 
to  when  we  arrive  at  that  part  of  his  argument  where  it 
is  introduced. 

Without  an  ascertained  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the 
Greek  language,  how  is  he  prepared  to  determine  its 
signification  in  the  New  Testament  1  He  may  plead  a 
sacred  acceptation  of  the  word,  different  from  that  which 
it  had  among  the  Greeks.  But  this  can  only  be  admit- 
ted when  sustained  by  unquestionable  authorities.  The 
position  and  authorities  are  wanting  as  the  basis  of  his 
answer.  He  goes  to  the  New  Testament  in  his  argument 
without  an  ascertained  meaning  for  baptizo,  and  there 
seeks  to  give  it  any  meaning  that  suits  his  convenience 
and  practice. 


MR.  PEDOBAr-TIST.  213 

3.  We  are  now  prepared  to  hear  his  conclusion  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  language:  "And  in  regarding 
the  quantity  of  water  employed  in  baptism,  as  well  as 
the  mode  of  exhibiting  it,  not  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance."  The  argument  upon  which  this  conclu- 
sion is  supposed  to  rest,  is  stated  in  the  form  of  a  syllo- 
gism.    To  its  examination  we  now  call  your  attention. 

1.  His  major  proposition  is,  "that  no  circumstance  can 
be  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a  divine  ordinance,  except 
those  God  has  commanded.''''  The  truthfulness  of  this  pro- 
position depends  upon  what  he  signifies  by  a  "  circum- 
stance." It  can  never,  with  any  show  of  reason,  be  said, 
the  thing  commanded  to  be  done  in  an  ordinance  is  a 
circumstance.  Those  things  that  attend  the  performance 
required,  may  be  called  circumstances.  To  show  the 
force  of  our  position,  let  us  strike  out  baptizo  from  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism.  Will  not  this  removal  make  the  ordi- 
nance void  1  Certainly,  because  the  most  important  word 
in  the  law  is  stricken  out.  In  view  of  this  fact  we  ask 
how  can  the  thing  in  the  ordinance  commanded  and  desig- 
nated by  baptizo  be  a  "  circumstance  1"  For  to  make  it 
such  seems  to  be  the  design  of  the  argument.  To  illus- 
trate our  position  and  to  show  the  essentiality  of  some 
circumstances,  let  us  look  again  at  the  command  to  bap- 
tize.  This  word  alone  designates  the  thing  to  be  done 
to  the  subjects  of  baptism.  Are  not  the  place  where  it 
is  done,  and  the  element  in  which  it  is  done,  essential 
circumstances  %  These  two  things  are  not  necessarily 
included  in  the  command  to  go  and  baptize,  but  as  cir- 
cumstances they  are  essential   to  the  existence  of  the 


2  14)  THE    TRIAL    OF 

ordinance.  Again,  we  are  commanded  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  for  a  certain  object. 
This  is  the  extent  of  the  command  as  found  in  the  insti- 
tution. Is  not  the  provision  of  the  bread  and  wine  essen- 
tial to  its  performance!  Are  not  the  posture  and  place 
essential  to  its  observance  *?  All  these  things  are  essen- 
tial circumstances  to  this  ordinance.  No  one  can  say  to 
provide  the  bread  and  wine,  and  also  a  place  with  sub- 
jects, that  this  would  constitute  the  ordinance,  because 
then  the  eating  and  drinking,  which  are  commanded, 
would  be  wanting.  But  what  would  be  the  character  of 
the  logic  that  would  call  the  eating  and  drinking  in  the 
ordinance  for  a  certain  object,  only  circumstances  1  If 
the  principle  is  just  in  its  application  to  baptism,  it  also 
must  be  so  when  applied  to  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  We  have  said  sufficient  to  expose  the  design 
of  an  argument,  which  seeks  to  confound  the  thing  com- 
manded with  those  things  necessary  to  its  execution. 

2.  His  minor  proposition  is,  that  "  God  has  not  com- 
manded immersion  in  his  word."  This  is  the  assumption 
of  the  whole  question  in  debate !  This  proposition  can 
have  no  logical  connection  with  his  major,  unless  im- 
mersion is  by  him  considered  a  circumstance  connected 
sometimes  with  the  thing  commanded  to  be  done  in  the 
ordinance  ;  and  then  the  thing  designated  by  baptizo  in 
the  law  signifies  something,  which  he  fails  to  inform  us. 
The  unsoundness  of  his  position  is  evident  from  the 
fact,  thabhis  want  of  knowledge  of  the  thing  commanded 
by  baptizo  in  the  institution,  places  beyond  his  judgment, 
the  determination  of  his  supposed  fact  that  immersion 


Mft.    PEDQBA]  -  215 

is  a  circumstance  of  an  unknown  something  denoted  by 
baptizo.  Until  this  is  ascertained,  no  man  can  tell  what 
are  circumstances  connected  with  it.  This  failure  to 
communicate  this  essential  knowledge  makes  his  own 
position  void,  because  without  it  he  is  unable  to  decide 
anything  concerning  it.  His  assuming  it  to  be  true, 
without  facts  to  warrant  it,  is  asking  too  much  of  his 
readers. 

Let  us  inquire  whether  the  facts  in  evidence,  and  at 
the  hand  of  any  person  who  will  take  a  little  trouble  to 
inform  himself,  will  warrant  the  statement  that  immer- 
sion is  only  a  circumstance  sometimes  connected  with 
baptism  1  First,  the  testimony  in  evidence  assures  us 
that  baptizo  signified  to  immerse,  before,  at,  and  after 
the  time  it  was  incorporated  into  the  law  of  baptism. — 3 
Secondly,  the  early  history  of  the  church  in  her  practice 
as  given  by  Pedobaptists,  shows  this  to  have  been  her 
understanding  of  its  signification.  Thirdly,  Pedobap- 
tists, by  scores,  declare  without  equivocation,  that  im- 
mersion was  the  thing  commanded  by  baptizo  in  the  law. 
Take  the  united  testimony  of  these  witnesses,  not  in  the 
least  interested  for  the  Baptist  view  of  this  subject,  and 
it  proves  beyond  dispute  that  the  command  in  the  law 
was  immersion.  We  ask  by  what  supposed  possibility 
it  could  become  a  circumstance  of  itself?  We  sustain 
our  position  by  evidence  that  cannot  by  Pedobaptists  be 
disputed  with  the  hope  of  success,  because  they  offer  a 
willing  testimony  against  their  own  practice. 


216  THE    TRIAL    OF 

REPLY    TO    THE    ARGUMENT    ON    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  proceed  to  an  examination  of 
his  arguments  offered  in  proof  of  his  minor  proposition, 
that  "  God  has  not  commanded  immersion  in  his  wordy 
Before  we  enter  into  this  examination,  it  is  desirable 
that  we  should  learn  the  meaning  of  baptizo  from  those 
who  wrote  and  spoke  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. To  presume  that  the  New  Testament  uses  bap- 
tizo  in  different  senses,  without  incontestable  authority, 
is  to  dictate  to  it  a  meaning,  and  to  regulate  our  inter- 
pretations accordingly.  This  principle,  in  its  applica- 
tion, would  practically  make  void  revelation,  as  a  medi- 
um of  communicating  God's  will  to  mankind.  It  be- 
comes a  necessity  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  by  the  re- 
ceived meaning  of  its  words,  unless  connection  or  notice 
teaches  us  otherwise.  The  subject  of  our  inquiry  was 
so  well  understood  by  all  the  parties  concerned  in  the 
beginning  of  our  government,  that  by  them  no  questions 
were  proposed  in  relation  thereto,  or  explanations  given. 

Heb.  9 :  10 :  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks," 
&c.  This  is  the  first  passage  of  Scripture  referred  to  by 
Dr.  Schmucker,  in  proof  of  his  position.  These  "divers 
washings"  (baptismois)  referred  to  by  Paul,  took  place 
under  the  administration  of  the  law  of  Moses.  The 
Doctor  assumes  "  they  were  performed  by  sprinkling 
and  pouring."  He  offers  not  a  single  tittle  of  veritable 
evidence,  to  support  this  bold  assumption.  How  can 
this  assumption  be  made  with  the  knowledge  of  the  fact, 
that  sprinkle  or  pour  is  not  in  a  solitary  instance  called 


MR,    PEBOEAPTIST*  ±]  % 

baptism  1  Does  he  believe  a  mere  statement  like  this 
will  be  believed  in  a  controversy,  that  can  be  determined 
only  by  evidence!  If  he  does,  he  is  greatly  mistaken. 
Precedents  for  its  reception  as  evidence,  would  be  hard 
to  find.  This  must  prove  to  the  impartial,  the  exceeding 
weakness  of  a  cause  that  can  only  be  sustained  by  as- 
sumptions.  Paul  says  there  were  "  divers  baptisms"  as 
well  as  sprinklings,  under  the  law.  This  should  be  suffi- 
cient authority.  If  Paul  does  not  confound  them,  what 
right  have  we  \  Let  the  Doctor,  if  he  can,  prove  that 
these  "divers  baptisms1'  were  included  in  the  sprinklings 
under  the  same  administration.  This  we  know  he  never 
can  do.  Until  it  is  done  by  him,  we  are  bound  to  con- 
clude there  is  no  support  for  his  practice  here. 

We  are  willing  to  do  more  than  can  possibly  be  de- 
manded of  us,  to  show  the  nature  of  these  "divers  bap- 
tisms," though  we  are  aware  that  Paul's  testimony  is 
sufficient,  if  received  as  evidence.  The  command  to 
"bathe  their  flesh  in  water,"  under  the  law,  included  im- 
mersion. Naaman's  conduct,  in  obedience  to  this  law, 
when  he  dipped  himself  in  Jordan,  is  sufficient  proof  of 
this  fact.  The  command  for  bathing  in  Numbers  18th, 
required  the  washing  of  their  flesh  in  water,  and  the 
most  reasonable  and  easy  way  of  compliance  was  by 
immersion.  We  shall  now  cite  two  Pedobaptists,  to 
show  that  the  immersion  of  persons  was  practised  under 
the  law.  Bp.  Home :  "  The  Jews  had  two  sorts  of 
washing;  one,  of  the  whole  body,  by  immersion,  which/ 
was  used  by  the  priests  at  their  consecration,  and  by  the 

proselytes  at  their  initiation," — Home's  Intro,,  p,  335. 
10 


21 S  T-HF.    TRIAL    OF 

Dr.  Brown  :  "  t''ur  none  might  go  into  the  Court  of  the 
priests  to  serve  (not  even  those  who  were  ceremonially 
clean)  who  had  not  previously  washed  their  bodies  in 
water;  evidently  denoting,  that  those  should  be  hoty, 
whose  office  it  was  to  bear  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary. 
But  this  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  morning, 
was  not  repeated  through  the  day." — Brown's  Antiqui- 
ties of  the  Jews,  p.  354.  Let  me  add  the  testimony  of 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  endorsed  by  Dr.  A.  Clark  :  "  The  baptism 
of  John  was  hy  plunging  the  body,  (after  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  washing  of  unclean  persons,  and  the  baptism 
of  proselytes  was.) — Clark's  Com.  These  are  sufficient 
to  prove  the  immersion  of  persons  under  the  law,  which 
we  may  suppose  to  be  included  in  these  "divers  bap- 
tisms." 

Under  the  law,  you  will  also  find  the  immersion  of 
things:  "But  his  inwards  and  legs  shall  be  washed  in 
water."  See  also  Lev.  11  :  32,  and  Num.  31 :  23,  &c, 
where  the  immersion  of  things  is  plainly  taught.  These 
"divers  baptisms"  include  all  the  immersions  under  the 
law,  whether  of  hands,  feet,  persons,  vessels,  clothing, 
&c,  because  Paul  does  not  make  any  specifications,  but 
includes  all. 

That  this  passage  of  Scripture  a'flbrds,  even  by  impli- 
cation, any  ground  for  sprinkling  or  pouring  in  baptism, 
is  not  to  be  found  here.  Who  can  suppose  that  Paul 
here,  would  contradict  his  meaning  of  baptism  as  found 
in  Rom.  6th,  where  he  teaches  it  to  be  "burial."  This 
absurdity  must  be  admitted  to  be  a  fact,  to  give  a  re- 
spectable character  to    the  assumption   which   teaches, 


WE.    PEDOBA-PTIST.  219 

that  these  divers  baptisms  embrace  the  sprinklings  of  the 
law.  Who  is  prepared  to  adopt  a  principle  in  the  eluci- 
dation of  this  passage,  that  can  be  used  with  a  tremen- 
dous force  against  Christianity  1  Infidelity  would  say, 
your  Bible  is  no  intelligent  document,  if  one  thing  is 
made  to  embrace  another,  whenever  your  argument  de- 
mands it.  With  this  principle,  as  a  weapon,  employed 
against  Popery,  the  battle  would  be  all  on  one  side,  and 
we  would  be  sure  of  defeat.  It  is  one  of  the  boldest  as- 
sumptions to  say,  that  baptizo  includes  raino  and  cheo, 
when  there  is  not  a  solitary  occurrence  to  justify  it,  and 
when  it  comes  in  direct  conflict  with  the  fact,  that  each 
of  these  words  is  the  representative  of  a  distinct  and 
different  idea  in  the  language.  Open  your  Concordance 
and  examine  these  words,  and  see  whether  what  we  say 
is  not  demonstrated  by  their  use  in  the  Bible. 

Mark  7:  4. — The  second  passage  of  Scripture  intro- 
duced by  the  Doctor,  may  be  found  in  Mark  7 :  4.  "  And 
when  they  (the  Pharisees)  come  from  market,  except  they 
wash  (baptize  themselves)  they  eat  not."  This  passage 
and  his  use  of  it,  will  warrant  the  following  considera- 
tions : 

1.  Let  me  give  his  proof  that  baptizo  here  does  not 
signify  to  immerse.  "  Now  it  certainly  was  the  custom 
of  the  Jews  to  wash  their  hands  before  eating,  but  what 
author  ever  contended  that  they  entirely  immersed  them- 
selves in  water  before  every  meal."  The  conclusion  he 
draws  from  this  statement,  created  by  his  own  fancies, 
is,  "  yet  this  application  of  water  to  a  very  small  part  of 
the  body  (to  their  hands)   is  called  baptism."     If  this 


220  THE    TRIAL    OF 

proof  and  conclusion  do  not  form  a  logical  curiosity,  I 
am  much  mistaken.  That  the  argument  is  entirely  false 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  founded  on  two  things 
not  in  the  document.  First.  "  That  the  Jews  entirely 
immersed  themselves  in  water  before  every  meal."  There 
is  no  such  statement  found  any  where  in  the  passage. 
The  statement  of  the  writer  and  that  of  the  Doctor  are 
as  distinct  and  different  propositions  as  any  two  can  be. 
The  statement  of  Mark  is,  that  when  they  come  from 
market  they  immerse  themselves  before  eating.  He  does 
not  say  they  immersed  themselves  before  every  meal. 
This  fact  given  by  Mark,  makes  entirely  void  the  false 
premises  of  the  Doctor.  They  both  cannot  be  found  in 
this,  or  any  other  Scripture.  Secondly.  His  conclusion 
cannot  be  better  than  his  premises,  that  the  "application 
of  water  to  a  small  part  of  the  body  is  called  baptism." 
This  conclusion  finds  no  authority  in  the  document. 
The  washing  of  hands  referred  to  here,  is  not  in  this 
Scripture,  nor  in  any  other,  called  baptism.  If  there  was 
such  a  passage  in  the  Scriptures,  why  did  he  not  present 
it  1  For  without  something  like  it,  his  assumption  is 
false.  The  washing  of  the  hands  is  designated  by  ni- 
pesthai,  a  word  belonging  to  another  family,  and  no 
where  confounded  with  baptizo.  If  this  was  not  the 
fact,  the  contrary  would  be  offered  as  conclusive  proof 
of  their  position,  but  up  to  this  time,  this  essential  thing 
has  not  been  found. 

2.  The  Doctor's  argument  on  this  passage  confounded 
two  things  that  are  different — the  washing  of  hands  be- 
fore meals,  and  the  immersing  of  their  persons  after  re- 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  221 

turning  from  market,  before  taking  their  meals.  The 
one  practice  was  of  daily  occurrence,  designated  by  ni 
pesthai.  The  other  was  a  special  occurrence  after  tbey 
visited  the  market,  and  is  designated  by  baptisontai. 
These  two  customs  differ  as  to  the  occasions  that  demand- 
ed them — the  one  before  every  meal — the  other  only 
after  they  came  from  market.  Again,  the  one  custom 
only  related  to  their  hands — the  other  to  their  persons 
And,  further,  the  things  said  to  be  done  are  designated 
by  two  different  words  that  do  not  belong  to  the  same 
family.  These  facts,  so  visible  in  the  document,  ought 
to  put  his  assumption  to  shame. 

3.  Let  us  notice  the  historical  confirmation  which  Dr. 
Schmucker  demands,  for  a  custom  although  it  is  said  to 
exist,  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  He  declares 
it  impossible  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  im- 
merse themselves  before  meals,  because  such  a  custom 
is  not  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  a  contemporaneous 
historian.  But  you  must  remember  that  he  states  a  cus- 
tom for  them  not  found  in  the  passage — immersion  be- 
fore every  meal.  Is  it  not  sufficient  authority  for  Chris- 
tians, that  the  Evangelist  says  the  Jews  immersed 
themselves  after  returning  from  market,  before  they 
would  eat  %  This  is  his  testimony,  if  we  believe  that 
the  ascertained  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse.  We 
have  no  authority  to  say  it  has  here  a  different  significa- 
tion, from  that  which  the  testimony  of  Greeks  and  Jews 
gives  to  it.  The  writer  gives  us  no  intimation  of  an  unu- 
sual meaning.  To  say  it  has  a  meaning  here  to  suit 
the  convenience  of  the  Doctor's  argument,  is  taking  the 


222  THE    TRIAL    Of 

wildest  license.  If  no  fact  in  the  Gospel  is  to  be  believed, 
because  it  is  not  confirmed  by  some  historian  of  the 
times,  we  will  by  the  mandate  of  this  false  principle  of 
interpretation,  have  to  reject  Christ's  resurrection,  and 
many  other  facts  in  the  gospel.  What  can  stand  before 
a  principle  of  this  kind  1  It  is  only  used  here  to  ac- 
complish a  purpose,  after  which  its  soundness  will  no 
longer  be  defended. 

4.  We  will  now  present  two  reliable  Pedobaptist  au- 
thorities to  confirm  our  statement  of  this  passage  of 
Scripture. 

Dr.  Hammond:  "The  word  here  used,  baptisthai,  (as 
it  differs  from  nipesthai  verse  3,)  signifies  not  only  the 
washing  of  the  whole  body  (as  when  it  is  said  Eupolis 
being  taken  and  thrown  into  the  sea,  ebaptizato,  was  im- 
mersed all  over,  and  so  the  baptism  of  cups,  &c,  in  the 
end  of  this  verse,  is  putting  into  water  all  over,  rinsing 
them,")  &c. — Annotations  on  Mark  7 :  4. 

Beza :  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized  ;  by 
which  word  it  is  certain  immersion  is  signified.  Bap- 
tizesthai,  in  this  place,  is  more  than  kerniptein  ;  because 
that  seems  to  respect  the  whole  body,  this  only  the 
hands.  Nor  does  baptizein  signify  to  wash,  except  by 
consequence  :  for  it  properly  signifies  to  immerse  for  the 
sake  of  dyeing — to  be  baptized  in  water,  signifies  no 
other  than  to  be  immersed  in  water." — Booth,  p.  46. 

It  should  be  no  source  of  surprise  that  these  authori- 
ties, with  others,  understand  baptizo  here  to  have  the 
same  signification  which  it  has  in  other  places  ;  because 


5tfc.    I'EDOBAPTIST.  223 

the  whole  construction  of  the  passage  with  the  facts  it 
contains,  warrants  no  other  meaning. 

5.  We  will  next  show  what  superstition  will  lead  per- 
sons to  do,  after  they  have  contracted  some  supposed  de- 
filement. It  was  under  the  influence  of  this  supposition, 
that  tradition  demanded  of  the  Pharisees,  the  immersion 
of  their  persons  after  returning  from  market.  The  fol- 
lowing cases  will  be  sufficient  to  elucidate  the  principle. 
Herodotus,  in  Eurterpe,  speaking  of  an  Egyptian  who 
happens  to  touch  a  swine,  says:  "Going  to  the  river 
(Nile)  he  dips  himself  (ebapse)  with  his  clothes." 

Mr.  Bruce  informs  us  that  in  Abyssinia,  the  sect  called 
Kemmont,  "  wash  themselves  from  head  to  foot,  after 
coming  from  market,  or  any  other  public  place." 

The  Essenes,  Josephus  informs  us,  (p.  723)  "after 
working  for  some  hours  in  the  morning,  assemble  in  one 
place,  and  girding  themselves  with  linen  veils,  bathe  be- 
fore dinner." 

How  can  we  tell  that  they  did  things  reported  of 
them,  the  result  of  their  superstition,  except  by  the 
words  found  in  the  reports,  and  these  taken  in  their  re- 
ceived acceptation  1  If  we  can  believe  the  facts  reported 
in  the  above  documents,  without  urging  the  impossibility 
of  the  things  reported,  what  right  have  we  to  dispute 
the  custom  of  the  Pharisees  designated  by  buptizo  on  the 
ground  of  improbability  1  The  principle  which  you 
apply  to  them,  you  are  bound  to  apply  to  all  the  above 
•  cases,  and  thereby  abrogate  these  facts  of  history,  be- 
cause you  think  their  superstition  would  not  lead  them 
to  do  these  things.     To  adopt  this  as  a  sound  principle 


22M  THE    TRIAL    Of 

will  be  to  set  aside  every  strange  historical  fact  reported^ 
simply  because  it  looks  improbable  to  us. 

The  principle  that  seeks  to  set  aside  a  custom  reported 
by  the  Evangelist,  because  founded  in  superstition,  can 
find  no  authority  to  support  it.  We  are  bound  to  be- 
Yieve  the  Evangelist  reported  the  customs  among  the 
Jews  correctly,  and  that  the  received  significations  of 
the  words  employed  to  communicate  themr  must  be  taken 
in  their  received  acceptations,  as  in  the  above  eases. 

6.  There  is  another  part  of  this  passage  of  Scripture 
yet  to  be  noticed :  "And  many  other  things  there  bef 
which  they  receive  to  hold,  as  the  washing  (baptism)  of 
cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables."  The  Doctor 
admits  the  "  cups  and  potss  might  indeed  be  immersed  ire 
water,  yet  of  this  we  are  not  certain."  We  are  certain 
they  were  immersed,  by  the  word  employed  to  denote 
what  was  done  to  them  j  because  this  meaning  is  estab- 
lished by  numerous  and  undoubted  examples  in  the  lan- 
guage. There  being  no  other  meaning  in  evidence,,  or 
reason  offered  why  we  should  depart  from  this  ascer- 
tained signification,  we  can  have  no  reason  to  doubt  it. 

Let  us  illustrate  our  position  by  a  supposed  case,  simi- 
lar in  many  respects  to  those  we  have  already  cited.  If 
It  was  published  that  a  certain  sect  in  this,  or  any  other 
country,  immersed  themselves  after  returning  home  from 
the  place  of  public  intercourse  with  others  not  belonging 
to  their  sect,  and  that  the  law  of  their  society  also  re- 
quired of  them  the  duty  of  immersing  their  cups,  pots 
and  lounges,  would  any  sane  person  believe  that  the  word 
mmcrsc,  in  this  account,  in  to  be  taken  in  a  signification 


Ma.  rEboBAi'Tis'r.  225 

altogether  different  from  what  it  is  known  to  have  among 
us  1  I  answer  not.  We  would  rather  deny  the  facts  iu 
the  statement,  than  to  say  that  immerse,  in  this  report, 
signifies  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour.  We  have  described  the 
natural  and  general  conviction  that  would  follow  a  re- 
port of  this  kind.  Let  us  now  ask,  what  must  be  the 
weakness  of  a  cause  that  demands  a  departure  from  the 
well  known  meaning  of  a  word,  and  the  substitution  of 
one  unknown  to  the  document,  and  altogether  different 
in  its  signification,  to  justify  a  practice  unknown  to  the 
word  in  the  report  1  This  departure  and  substitution 
form  the  argument  of  the  Doctor  in  relation  to  the  cus- 
toms reported  by  Mark.  I  will  believe  Mark's  account, 
and  reject  the  Doctor's. 

Let  us  here  introduce  the  testimony  of  the  well  known 
Jewish  writer,  Maimonides.  He  says :  "  In  a  laver  which 
holds  forty  seeks  of  water,  they  dip  all  unclean  vessels. 
A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips  it  part  by  part,  is 
pure.  If  he  dips  the  bed  in  the  pool,  although  the  feet 
are  plunged  in  the  thick  clay  at  the  bottom  of  the  pool, 
it  is  clean.  What  shall  he  do  with  a  pillow  or  a  bolster 
of  skin  %  He  must  dip  them,  and  lift  them  up  by  the 
fringes,"  Hinton,  p.  35.  This  Jewish  witness  fully  con- 
firms Mark's  report  of  this  custom. 

7.  Ail  these  customs,  says  the  passage,  of  baptizing 
persons  and  things,  were  in  compliance  with  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  elders.  It  was  the  tradition  of  the  elders 
that  gave  them  a  singular  character ;  and  this  singularity 
exhibits  the  strength  of  their  superstition.  Super stition, 
as  we  have  already  shown,  considered  it  no  hardship  (o 


226  THE    TRIAL   OF 

immerse  its  votaries,  when  they  suffered  from  a  supposed 
contamination,  though  it  is  considered  a  hardship  and  are 
"indecency"  for  Christianity  to  ask  as  much  from  her 
followers ! 

The  argument  from  "  impossibility"  finds  no  real  foun- 
dation here,  because  all  the  persons  and  things  said  to 
be  immersed,  were  susceptible  of  this  action.  Until  an 
impossibility  is  clearly  in  evidence,  we  are  bound  by 
every  legitimate  law  of  interpretation  to  maintain  the 
things  were  performed,  as  imported  in  the  words  by 
which  they  are  designated. 

8.  Let  us  notice  next  his  conclusion,  drawn  from  this 
passage  :  "  That  many  purifications,  termed  baptisms  i ti- 
the New  Testament,  were  certainly  performed  by  sprink- 
ling, and  (in  case  of  the  tables)  by  pouring."  If  it  is  a 
"  certainty"  that  baptism  in  the  JNew  Testament  was  per~ 
formed  by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  why  not  give  us  a 
solitary  proof  of  it  I  That  would  decide  the  whole  contro- 
versy forever.  When  we  ask  him  for  bread,  he  gives  us- 
a  stone.  When  we  demand  proof,  we  are  met  by  as- 
sumptions. This  "certainty"  of  his  turns  out  to  be  & 
fiction,  when  you  look  for  the  proof  to  make  it  a  cer- 
tainty. 

The  Doctor's  whole  effort  upon  this  Scripture,  is  made 
up  of  positive  statements,  instead  of  proof,  and  conclu- 
sions in  harmony  with  the  statements.  You  will  observe 
he  has  no  fixed  meaning  for  baptizo  ;  but  it  has  signifi- 
cations to  suit  his  arguments.  Sometimes  it  may  be 
sprinkling,  and  again  it  may  be  pouring,  and  it  may  pos- 
sibly be  immersion.     All  these  things  cannot  be  true  of 


MK.    l'EDOBAI'TIST.  227 

baptizo,  because,  thus  you  would  make  it  include  wash- 
ing, sprinkling,  pouring  and  immersing.  JNo  word  can 
specifically  signify  all  these  ideas.  Yet  this  absurdity 
must  be  adopted,  to  help  the  cause  of  Pedobaptism. 

It  must  be  remembered,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon 
Dr.  S.,  because  he  introduces  this  Scripture  to  prove  his 
practice  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  in  baptism.  All  we 
were  bound  to  do,  was  to  show  that  the  evidence  he 
offered  failed  to  prove  his  proposition.  The  fact  is,  he 
offered  no  evidence  that  would  bear  much  scrutiny,  and 
for  this  reason  you  find  us  showing  the  negative  to  be 
well  founded. 

PENTECOST. 

The  third  passage  of  Scripture  that  Dr.  S.  calls  to  his 
support,  in  way  of  objection  to  immersion  in  baptism,  is 
the  baptism  of  those  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  We  will 
proceed  to  examine  his  effort  made  in  relation  to  this 
baptism. 

1.  His  opening  assumption  is,  that  ic  three  thousand" 
converts  were  baptized  on  this  day.  This  assumption 
is  not  susceptible  of  proof  from  the  document.  It  is  no 
wonder  to  us  that  he  takes  this  to  be  granted  without 
evidence,  because  without  this  given,  his  whole  effort  on 
this  passage  would  not  have  the  appearance  of  plausi- 
bility. We  remark  in  the  First  place,  that  the  docu- 
ment no  where  teaches  that  three  thousand  were  baptized 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Secondly,  the  only  number  said 
to  be  baptized  on  that  occasion,  were  those  "  that  gladly 
received  the  word."     We  ean  find  no  facts  in  the  record 


228  THE   TRIAL  Oi-" 

by  which  the  number  baptized  can  be  estimated  with 
any  degree  of  certainty.  We  must  abide  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  historian.  Thirdly)  the  historian  does 
plainly  say,  that  "three  thousand  were  added  to  their 
number."  Fourthly,  there  is  a  material  difference  be- 
tween the  statement  of  the  historian  and  the  one  made 
by  Dr.  S.— the  one  says,  three  thousand  were  baptized 
on  this  day — the  other  says,  three  thousand  were  added 
to  the  number  of  disciples.  I  believe  the  historian  re- 
ported the  fact  correctly,  and  I  am  thereby  compelled  to 
reject  Dr.  S.'s  account  of  the  matter.  By  removing  the 
foundation  of  the  Doctor's  argument,  as  found  in  this 
assumption,  our  work  is  done ;  because  his  whole  argu- 
ment depends  upon  the  admission  ©f  the  assumption,  that 
three  thousand  were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
But  as  this  case  is  a  somewhat  famous  one  among  Pedo- 
baptists,  let  us  examine  it  a  little  further. 

2.  It  is  a  fact,  that  John  the  Baptist  baptized  a  large 
number  from  Jerusalem  and  its  vicinity,  and  that  also 
Christ  "made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John." 
Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  some  of  those  bap- 
tized by  John  and  Christ's  disciples,  were  on  this  occa- 
sion recognized  as  disciples  by  their  public  fellowship 
with  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  by  its  acknowledg- 
ment of  them  as  such  1  Here  only  was  there  an  or- 
ganized Christian  assembly,  the  existence  of  which  was 
brought  to  light  on  this  occasion,  to  those  scattered  dis- 
ciples who  lived  beyond  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem.  The 
feast  of  Pentecost  collected  the  Jews  from  all  the  sur- 
rounding countries,  and  to  many  of  them,  disciplcd  be- 


Mil.    FtiDOBAPfiST.  220 

fore  this  occasion,  an  opportunity  of  organized  Christian 
society  had  not  been  offered.  If  this  suggestion  is  not 
received,  we  shall  hold  the  rejectors  of  it,  to  the  proof 
from  the  Scriptures  of  these  propositions,  essential  to 
their  argument.  1.  That  three  thousand  were  baptized 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  2.  That  they  were  not  bap- 
tized by  immersion.  These  two  things  we  know  are  not 
susceptible  of  proof  from  the  document,  and  from  this 
necessity  their  argument  must  fail.  3.  Let  us  now  in- 
quire what  the  result  would  be  if  we  should  admit,  for 
argument  sake,  that  three  thousand  were  baptized  on 
this  day.  The  result  must  be  determined  by  the  follow- 
ing facts  :  1.  The  number  of  disciples  on  this  occasion  at 
this  place,  was  a  hundred  and  twenty.  2.  The  promise 
of  the  bestowment  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  made  to  them 
all,  Acts  2:4.  3.  "  They  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost"  on  this  occasion.  4.  "  They  all  spoke  with  other 
tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  5.  These 
disciples,  all  enjoying  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
publication  of  the  facts  of  the  Gospel  to  those  that  assem- 
bled, all  had  the  right  to  baptize  those  that  received 
the  word.  6.  The  baptism  of  those  that  gladly  received 
the  word,  is  no  where  in  the  document  confined  to  the 
apostles.  What  right  then  have  Pedobaptists  to  confine 
the  baptism  of  those  that  gladly  received  the  word  to 
the  apostles,  without  the  authority  of  evidence  1  This 
they  fail  to  furnish,  because  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
passage. 

Supposing  that  we  admit   that  three   thousand  were 
baptized  in  one  day,  and  that  only  the  apostles  were  ad- 


230  THE   TRIAL    Oi- 

ministrators,  still  those  who  claim  these  admissions  as 
facts,  forget  that  their  estimates  of  the  number  baptized 
by  the  twelve,  according  to  their  own  assumption,  will 
work  with  equal  force  against  the  baptizing  of  the  sup- 
posed three  thousand,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring ;  for  it 
would  take  the  same  time,  personally,  to  sprinkle  or  pour 
water  upon  them,  that  it  would  to  immerse  them  in 
water.  Experiment  has  proven  this  fact.  If  their  ob- 
jection is  good  against  their  immersion  personally,  it 
will  be  equally  valid  against  their  sprinkling  individu- 
ally. If  they  would  say  they  were  sprinkled  in  crowds, 
we  would  answer,  in  the  language  of  an  eminent  Pedo- 
baptist,  Dr.  Lightfoot,  endorsed  by  Dr.  A.  Clark,  they 
could  all  plunge  themselves  under  the  water  at  the  com- 
mand of  the  administrators.  On  this  score  the  time 
would  be  the  same.  The  right  to  do  the  one  thing, 
■would  authorize  the  other. 

But  the  whole  argument  we  have  been  combating,  is 
altogether  founded  on  assumptions,  and  therefore  worth 
nothing.  If  the  truth  of  history  is  to  be  made  void,  on 
the  ground  of  a  supposed  improbability,  we  will  be  as- 
suming a  common  ground,  with  infidelity,  in  its  opposi- 
tion to  the  Bible,  for  this  is  its  most  potent  argument 
offered  to  invalidate  its  Divine  authority.  No  Christian 
man  can  occupy  this  ground,  without  endangering  that 
priceless  jewel,  the  Bible. 

6.  We  will  now  show  that  the  baptism  of  large  numbers 
in  one  day,  is  not  such  an  uncommon  occurrence,  or  so 
impracticable  as  the  argument  we  have  been  opposing, 
would  lead  us  to  suppose. 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  231 

Mr.  Marchant  says:  "Baptizing  in  one  day  three 
thousand  by  immersion,  need  not  be  wondered  at,  since 
we  read  in  the  authentic  life  of  Gregory,  the  Apostle  of 
the  Armenians,  that  he  baptized  twelve  thousand  together 
by  immersion,  in  the  river  Euphrates ;  which  Isaac,  the 
patriarch  of  that  nation,  confirms  in  his  first  invective." 
Exposi.  on  Matt.  3. 

Bingham :  t{  Palladius  observes,  in  the  life  of  St, 
Chrysostom,  that  at  Constantinople  three  thousand  per- 
sons were  baptized  at  once,  upon  one  of  their  great  fes- 
tivals."— Origin  Eccles.  B.  XI. 

Dr.  3,  G.  King:  Wolodimes,  a  Russian  prince,  was 
baptized  by  the  name  of  Basilius  j  and  it  is  said  twenty 
thousand  of  his  subjects  were  baptized  the  same  day." 
Rites  and  Cerent. 

J.  R.  Peyrin's  Def.  of  the  Vaudois,  p.  362 :  "  It  is  said 
Liberius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  360,  baptized  eight  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  persons  on  a  Saturday." 

"One  (baptistry)  was  prepared  for  the  baptism  of 
Clovisj  king  of  France}  and  his  majesty,  with  three 
thousand  of  his  subjects,  were  plunged,  says  Mezeray, 
on  Christmas-day,  496." — Mezeray,  French  History,  p.  15. 

Are  we  to  deny  these  historical  facts,  on  the  ground 
of  improbability,  because  we  are  not  informed  of  all  the 
circumstances  connected  with  their  performance  %  These 
numbers  are  said  by  the  historians  to  have  been  im- 
mersed. Are  we  then  to  say,  they  were  only  sprinkled, 
and  thus  make  void  the  facts  reported  by  the  historian  1 
The  cause  that  would  demand  this  use  of  the  reports  of 
historians,  deserves  no  favor  at  the  hands  of  a  reasonable 


'2'6-Z  Till*  TRIAL  ot 

public.  We  are  sure  from  the  fact  of  their  immersion 
being  reported,  that  all  the  agencies  necessary  to  its  per* 
formance,  were  employed,  although  the  details  are  not 
recorded.  Apply  the  same  common  sense  judgment  to 
those  said  to  have  been  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  you  will  never  be  troubled  (I  think)  with  a  doubt 
concerning  their  immersion. 

Before  we  dismiss  the  te*t  under  consideration  let  us 
present  one  or  two  other  cases,  from  Scripture,  which 
are  equally  open  to  Dr.  S.'s  doctrine  of  improbability. 
It  is  said  of  Abraham  that  he  circumcised  over  three 
hundred  persons  in  one  day.  Are  we  to  deny  this  re- 
ported fact,  because  we  think  it  improbable,  that  he  cir- 
cumcised so  many  in  one  day,  and  that  therefore  he  did 
something  less  than  that  which  the  law  of  circumcision 
imported  1  This  is  the  kind  of  argument  we  have  been 
exposing.  Again,  the  historian  says  that  king  Solomon, 
at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  "  offered  two  and  twenty 
thousand  oxen,  aud  a  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
sheep."  The  argument  from  improbability  would  say, 
that  it  is  not  possible  that  Solomon  possessed  and  gave 
this  large  number  of  oxen  and  sheep,  and,  therefore,  you 
must  interpret  it,  by  greatly  reducing  the  number  here 
reported.  And  further,  that  there  could  hardly  be  a 
sufficient  number  of  priests  to  offer  them  as  sacrifices,  if 
the  number  was  admitted  to  be  correct.  What  a  Bible 
and  history  we  would  have  in  the  light  of  this  argu- 
ment ! 

We  have  sufficiently  exposed  the  unsoundness  of  the 
argument  founded   on   improbability,  and  have  clearly 


HK.   PEDOBAPTIST.  233 

shown  that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  this  Scripture,  even 
if  its  soundness  was  admitted,  because  the  passage  is 
altogether  silent  about  the  number  baptized.  In  view  of 
these  two  facts,  (the  unsoundness  of  the  principle  and 
the  uncertainty  of  the  number  baptized,)  we  have  a  right 
to  say  that  this  passage  affords  not  the  shadow  of  a 
shade  of  evidence  in  favor  of  the  cause  of  Pedobaptism. 

CORNELIUS. 

Doctor  Schmucker  next  introduces  to  our  consideration 
that  what  he  calls  "  the  language  of  Peter,  when  he 
baptized'the  Gentiles  at  the  house  of  Cornelius."  Does 
he  in  this  extract  report  the  fact  in  the  document  cor- 
rectly 1  1  answer  he  does  not.  It  is  no  where  to  be 
found  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Acts,  that  Peter  "baptized 
the  Gentile  converts  at  the  house  of  Cornelius."  This 
assumption  he  considers  material  to  his  argument,  in 
order  to  maintain  a  practice  unauthorized  by  the  plain 
facts  found  in  the  Scripture.  It  is  sufficient  for  us  that 
it  cannot  be  proven,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  used  to  de- 
termine any  thing  in  relation  to  this  baptism.  Let  us 
permit  the  historian  to  speak  for  himself  "  Can  any  man 
(Peter  said)  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized, which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we." 
This  statement  is  not  the  same  in  language  or  import 
with  that  of  the  Doctor.  In  the  whole  record  the  place 
of  their  baptism  is  not  named,  nor  who  were  the  bap* 
tizers.  The  action  of  baptism  performed  at  this  time, 
can  only  be  determined  by  the  previously  ascertained 
meaning  of  the  word.     Peter  commanded  the  converts 


234  TMK    TKIAL    OF 

to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  we  must  be- 
lieve that  the  ordinance  was  administered  in  accordance 
with  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  invariable  custom 
of  those  clays. 

THE    JAILOR'S    BAPTISM. 

The  fifth  passage  introduced  by  Dr.  S.  may  be  found 
in  Acts  16th.  He  thinks,  there  may  be  some  support 
for  his  practice,  from  "  the  circumstances  of  the  jailor's 
baptism."  Let  us  note  the  material  circumstances  con- 
nected with  this  baptism.  I.  The  jailor's  conversion. 
2.  His  kindness  toward  the  prisoners — he  "  took  them  the 
same  hour  of  the  night  and  washed  their  stripes,"  be- 
fore his  baptism.  3.  After  their  stripes  were  washed, 
"he  was  baptized,  and  all  his,  straightway."  4.  After 
his  baptism  he  "  brought  them  into  his  house,"  &c. — 
These  circumstances  prove  the  following  things  :  7. 
Their  stripes  were  washed  and  the  jailor  was  baptized 
outside  of  the  jailor's  dwelling  house.  2.  There  was 
water  outside  of  his  dwelling,  to  which  the  apostles  were 
taken  to  have  their  stripes  washed,  and  sufficient  for  the 
baptism  of  the  jailor.  3.  Not  one  of  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  jailor's  baptism,  can  in  any  way  mili- 
tate against  the  fact  of  his  immersion.  And  there  being 
no  other  baptism  practised  by  the  apostles,  we  have  no 
right  to  presume  another  until  it  is  proven. 

With  what  precision  the  historian  notes  the  things 
that  were  done  on  this  occasion  !  This  is  evident,  from 
the  fact,  that  he  does  not  say  their  stripes  were  baptized 
and  the  jailor  was  washed  j  because  the  two  things  done 


MR.    FEDOBATTIST.  235 

were  different,  and  so  were  designated  by  two  different 
words.  A  washing  can  be  done  without  an  immersion, 
but  a  baptism  cannot  be  performed  without  an  immer- 
sion. The  historian  does  not  confound  these  two  words, 
as  do  some  modern  Pedobaptists.  The  latter  party,  by 
confounding  the  two  words  in  their  significations,  find 
a  ground  to  oppose  immersion  in  baptism,  but  the  histo- 
rian, having  no  such  object,  only  tells  what  was  really 
done. 

We  have  now  replied  to  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Schmuck- 
er,  as  introduced  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner,  in  sup- 
port of  his  views  of  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament.  You 
will  find  on  a  re-examination  of  both  sides  of  this  part 
of  the  controversy,  that  the  Doctor  manages  his  argu- 
ment by  the  contingencies  which  occur  in  the  Scriptures 
selected  by  him  in  opposition  to  immersion.  Baptizo, 
to  him,  has  no  definite  idea,  and,  therefore,  it  can  bo 
made  to  signify  any  thing  which  he  chooses.  This  mode 
of  investigation  is  repudiated  by  evey  good  law  of  in- 
terpretation. If  it  was  not,  the  will  of  God  would  re- 
main in  obscurity  forever.  His  conduct,  and  that  of 
all  others  who  walk  in  the  same  pathless  way,  in  their 
investigation  of  the  action  of  baptism,  signifies  the  en- 
tire weakness  of  the  cause  which  they  seek  to  defend, 
and  demands  a  defence  that  would  be  met  with  indigna- 
tion, were  it  offered  for  any  form  of  infidelity.  Proof, 
they  would  cry  out,  is  the  only  palladium  of  any  pro- 
position. 


236  THE    TRIAL    OF 

THE    FIGURATIVE    MEANING    OF    BAPTIZO. 

The  figurative  uses  of  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament 
will  reflect  back  to  its  literal  signification.  We  shall 
now  introduce  them. 

Mark  10 :  38,  39  :  «  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I 
drink  of,  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am 
baptized  with  1" 

Professor  Stuart :  "  Can  ye,  indeed,  take  upon  you  to 
undergo  patiently  and  submissively,  sufferings  like  to 
mine — sufferings  of  an  overwhelming  and  dreadful  na- 
ture 1" — Stuart  on  Bap.,  p.  72.    . 

Dr.  A.  Clark  :  "  Baptism  among  the  Jews,  as  it  was 
performed  in  the  coldest  weather,  and  the  persons  were 
kept  under  water  for  some  time,  was  used  to  not  only 
express  death,  but  the  most  cruel  kind  of  death." — 
Comm.  on  Malt.  20  :  20. 

Dr.  Doddridge  thus  paraphrases  the  place :  "  Are  you 
able  to  drink  of  the  bitter  cup  of  which  1  am  now  about 
to  drink  so  deep,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism, 
and  plunged  in  that  sea  of  sufferings  with  which  I  am 
shortly  to  be  baptized,  and,  as  it  were  overwhelmed  for  a 
timet" — Paraphrase  on  Matt.  20:  22. 

Witsius :  "  Immersion  into  water  is  to  be  considered 
by  us  as  exhibiting  that  dreadful  abyss  of  Divine  Justice, 
in  which  Christ  for  our  sins,  was  for  a  time,  as  it  were, 
absorbed  ;  as  in  David,  his  type,  he  complains,  Psl.  69,  2, 
"  /  am  come  into  deep  waters,  where  the  floods  overflow  me.'''' 

1  Cor.  10:  2:  "And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses, 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea," 


MR.    PEDOEAPTTST.  237 

Witsius  expounds  the  passage  to  this  effect:  "How 
were  the  Israelites  baptized  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea, 
seeing  they  were  neither  immersed  in  the  sea,  nor  wet- 
ted by  the  cloud  1  It  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  Apos« 
tie  here  uses  the  term  baptism  in  a  figurative  sense ; 
yet  there  is  some  agreement  to  the  external  sign.  The 
sea  is  water,  and  a  cloud  differs  but  little  from  water. 
The  cloud  hung  over  their  heads,  and  the  sea  sur- 
rounded them  on  each  side ;  and  so  the  water  in  regard 
to  those  that  are  baptized." 

Dr.  Whitby :  "  They  were  covered  with  the  sea  on 
both  sides,  Exod.  14* :  22,  so  that  both  the  cloud  and  the 
sea  had  some  resemblance  to  our  being  covered  with 
water  in  baptism.  Their  going  into  the  sea  resembled 
the  ancient  rite  of  going  into  the  water  ;  and  their  com- 
ing out  of  it,  their  rising  up  out  of  the  water." 

This  passage  makes  immersion  essential  to  baptism, 
because,  as  Professor  Stuart  says,  they  were  surrounded 
on  all  sides.  It  was  only  when  they  were  in  this  state 
that  they  are  said  to  be  baptized.  If  immersion  was  not 
baptism,  how  could  the  Apostle,  who  knew  all  about  the 
action,  call  it  such  in  this  passage  1 

You  do  sometimes  hear  from  Pedobaptists  that  the 
cloud  sprinkled  rain  upon  them,  or,  they  were  made  wet 
by  the  spray  of  the  sea.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Scriptures  to  countenance  these  wild  assumptions,  and 
if  the  ideas  did  exist,  they  would  never  have  been  called 
by  the  name  of  baptism  ;  because  in  all  the  occurrences 
of  these  things,  baptizo  is  never  used  to  denote  them. 

There  are  several  other  passages  of  Scripture  where 


238  THE   TRIAL   OF 

baptizo  is  used  figuratively,  but  as  they  are  of  like  im- 
port to  the  two  which  we  have  given  above,  we  will  not 
take  up  time  by  introducing  them.  It  is  an  established 
fact  in  evidence,  that  baptizo,  in  its  figurative  use,  sig- 
nifies overwhelm.  This  accounts  for  its  use  in  relation 
to  objects  in  the  New  Testament,  that  can  only  be  under- 
stood with  this  meaning. 

Let  us  close  our  remarks  on  this  subject  by  adopting 
Professor  Stuart's  conclusion  :  "  To  Hebrews  and  Greeks 
both,  the  idea  of  an  overwhelming  flood  offered  a  very 
obvious  image  to  designate  great  sorrow  and  affliction. 
Both,  therefore,  employ  it.  Thus  David  :  '  Save  me  O 
God,  for  the  waters  come  into  my  soul !  I  sink  in  deep 
mire,  where  there  is  no  standing ;  I  am  come  into  deep 
waters,  where  the  floods  overflow  me.' — Ps.  69  :  1. 
Again,  Ps.  18:16:  '  He  sent  from  above,  he  took  me, 
he  drew  me  out  of  many  waters.'  Ps.  32  :  6  :  '  Surely 
in  the  floods  of  great  waters,  they  shall  not  come  nigh 
to  him.'  Inasmuch  now,  as  the  more  usual  idea  of  bap- 
tizo is  that  of  overwhelming,  immerging,  it  was  natural 
to  employ  it  in  designating  severe  calamities  and  suffer- 
ings."— Stuart,  p.  73. 

PREPOSITIONS  CONSTRUED  WITH  BAPTIZO. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  meet  the  Counsel's  reply  to 
my  argument  offered  on  the  New  Testament  baptisms, 
containing  the  circumstances  connected  with  their  per- 
formance. The  leading  facts  in  my  argument,  concerning 
the  persons,  places,  and  circumstances  related  to  these 
baptisms,  are  not  disputed.     The  reason  why  they  were 


3IR.    PEDOBAPTTST.  ,239 

not  contested  may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  they  are  all 
in  the  passages  of  Scripture  referred  to.  The  only  dis- 
puted point  in  the  argument  is,  the  meaning  of  the  pre- 
positions employed  in  connection  with  these  baptisms. 

In  relation  to  the  preposition  construed  with  baptizo, 
raino,  and  cheo,  the  following  things  are  true:  (1)  Baptizo 
in  its  use  has  connected  with  it  en,  eis,  apo,  and  ek.  (2) 
With  raino  and  cheo  these  prepositions  are  not  construed, 
but  you  will  find  epi,  upon.  (3)  In  these  prepositions 
there  is  no  common  property  claimed  by  these  three  words. 
The  obvious  reason  for  it  is,  because  they  denote  three 
different  actions.  What  is  suitable  to  baptizo,  is  not 
suitable  to  sprinkle  or  pour.  (4)  The  usual  meaning  of 
these  prepositions  must  be  the  true  one,  unless  their 
connection  forbids  it.  This  principle  we  have  established 
by  the  highest  authority  on  the  interpretation  of  words. 
See  my  opening  address,  pp.  18,  21. 

Let  us  now  inquire  whether  these  distinctions  are  well 
founded,  in  the  ordinary  use  of  these  words  with  the 
prepositions.  We  will  read  on  this  subject  an  extract  or 
two  from  A.  Campbell  on  this  point  in  our  discussion. 
"  Peri-raino  epi  ton  katharisthenta — sprinkle  the  blood 
upon  {epi)  him  to  be  cleansed,  Lev.  14.  7:  2.  Peri-ranei 
epi  teen  oikian — sprinkle  upon  the  house,  Lev.  14 :  51  j  3. 
Ranei  epi  hUasterian — he  shall  sprinkle  it  upon  the  mercy 
seat,  Lev.  16  :  14.  This  phrase  oecurs  a  second  time  in 
the  same  verse — Peri  ranei  epi  ton  oikon — he  shall 
sprinkle  it  upon  the  house ;  epi  ta  skeua  ;  epitas  psuchas, 
upon  the  persons.  The  same  idiom  is  here  found  three 
times  in  one  verse,  Num.   19 :   18;  again,  in  the   19th 


24'0  THE    TRIAL   OF 

verse,  Peri  rami  epi  ton  akatharton—\\e  shall  sprinkle  it 
upon  the  unclean ;  again,  Eze.  36 :  25,  Ranei  epi  humas 
katharon  hudoor — I  will  sprinkle  upon  you  clean  water.  In 
construction,  then,  with  the  person  upon  whom  water  is 
sprinkled,  the  verb  raino  is  followed  by  epi;  never  by 
en  or  eis.  A.  sprinkles  water,  blood,  oil,  dust,  or  ashes 
upon  B.,  but  never  sprinkles  B.  in  blood,  oil,  dust,  &c. ; 
whereas  baptizo,  in  such  cases  is  followed  by  en  or  eis, 
never  by  epi.  A.  immerses  B.  not  upon,  or  with,  but  in 
water.  This  is  a  most  convincing  fact,  that  baptizo, 
occorring  eighty  times  in  the  New  Testament,  is  never 
construed  with  epi,  nor  raino  with  en  or  eis.  Baptizo  is 
frequently  construed  with  en  and  eis,  and  raino  with 
epi  i  but  they  never  interchange  their  particles.  A  shadow 
does  not  more  naturally  accompany  an  object  standing 
in  the  sunshine,  in  this  latitude,  than  does  epi  accompany 
raino,  and  en  baptizo,  in  the  cases  described. 

"  All  this  is  equally  true  in  the  case  of  cheo,  to  pour. 
The  object  on  which  water  or  anything  is  poured,  is 
designated  by  epi,  never  by  en.  The  thing  poured  or 
sprinkled  always  follows  the  verb  to  pour  or  sprinkle ; 
the  person  is  always  preceded  by  upon.  Neither  of 
these  facts  ever  occurs  in  the  case  of  baptizo.  In  that 
case  the  person  always  follows  the  verb,  and  the  mate- 
rial in  which  the  action  is  performed,  is  always  preceded 
by  en  expressed  or  understood.  Hence  the  uniform  con- 
struction in  the  one  case  is,  •  immerse  B.  in  water ;'  in 
the  other  case  the  construction  is,  ■  I  pour  or  sprinkle 
water  upon  B.'  Not  more  clearly  different  are  these  two 
constructions  in  English  than  they  are  in  Greek,     In* 


Jig.    FEtK'.fi.UiT£ST,  24! 

u>ed,  the  object  immersed  is  never  governed  by  a  pre- 
position — the  object  sprinkled  or  poured  is  always  gov* 
erned  by  a  preposition.  The  actions,  then,  in  the 
original  are  just  as  distinct  as  the  words,  baptizo,  cheoy 
raino,  and  their  respective  constructions." 

As  to  the  popular  acceptation  of  these  propositions  in 
their  construction  with  these  words,  said  to  be  actions  of 
baptisms,  Mr.  Campbell  says  :  "  On  counting  the  actual 
occurrences  of  en  in  the  New  Testament  I  find  it  is  found 
2,660  times.  Of  this  immense  number  of  times,  though 
these  learned  doctors  tell  you  of  its  two  and  twenty 
meanings,  it  is  translated  in  your  common  Testament 
2,045  times  by  in.  Yet  such  critics  as  Dr.  Miller,  when 
they  put  on  their  Pedobaptist  spectacles,  will  have  it 
with  always  where  baptism  is  alluded  to,  John  baptizes 
with  water  ;  but,  when  the  phrase  comes,  en  to  Jordunee, 
he  passes  it  by.  He  does  not  say  he  baptized  them  with 
Jordan  ;  but,  passing  it  by,  he  says  that  eis  means  at  or 
to,  in  such  cases.  Well,  not  having  time  to  count  over 
the  whole  book,  I  found  in  the  four  gospels  that  eis  oc- 
curs 795  times.  Of  these,  it  is  translated  by  into  372 
times,  and  by  to  for  into,  more  than  one  hundred  times  ; 
for,  to  the  temple,  to  the  house,  to  the  city,  to  Jerusalem, 
Bethany,  Nazareth,  &c,  means  into;  and  of  273  times 
unto,  it  might  have  been  very  often  into;  thus  making, 
in  all,  500  out  of  795  occurrences." 

**  As  for  ek  and  apo,  frequently  rendered  out  of  and 
from,  it  is,  on  two  accounts,  unnecessary  to  speak  par- 
ticularly ;  because,  first,  whether  they  are  more  com-, 
monly  rendered  from,  or  out  of,  avails  nothing,  seeing 
11 


2±~  THE    TBI  At    Or 

lhat  from,  nine  times  in  ten,  is  out  of,  in  sense.  For  ex* 
ample,  from  Heaven,  from  the  temple,  from  the  city, 
from  the  grave,  means  out  of  these  places,  and  not  from 
the  boundaries  of  them.  In  the  second  place,  it  being 
evident  that  baptizo,  with  en  and  eis,  must  certainly  place 
the  subjects  in  the  pool,  in  the  river,  or  in  the  bath,  ek  and 
apo  must  bring  them  out  of  it." 

This  development  of  the  character  of  the  prepositions 
employed  in  connection  with  baptizo,  raino  and  cheo,  is 
an  ample  refutation  of  the  objections  offered  by  the 
Counsel  in  noting  our  argument.  This  development 
also  shows  the  importance  of  the  fact  elucidated  by  us, 
of  the  essential  circumstances  demanded  by  the  actions 
of  baptizo,  raino  and  cheo,  and  that  what  is  essential  to 
baptizo,  is  not  essential  to  raino  and  cheo.  This  fact 
made  it  necessary  that  the  construction  should  be  dif- 
ferent. 

We  will  now  give  a  few  Pedobaptist  authorities,  who 
teach  that  these  baptisms  were  performed  by  immersion, 
and  who  must  have  understood  the  construction  of  the 
prepositions  with  the  verb  baptizo. 

Calvin:  "From  these  words,  John  3:  23,  it  may  be 
inferred,  that  baptism  was  administered  by  John  and 
Christ,  by  plunging  the  whole  body  under  water.  Here 
we  perceive  how  baptism  was  administered  among  the 
ancients;  for  they  immersed  the  whole  body  in  water. 
Now  it  is  the  prevailing  practice  for  a  Minister  only  to 
sprinkle  the  body  or  head." — In  John  3  :  23.  Comment 
on  Acts  8 :  38. 

Witsina  :  u  It   is  certain  that  both  John  the  Baptist, 


MR.  FEDOBAPTIST.  244 

and  the  disciples  of  Christ,  ordinarily  practised  immer- 
sion 5  whose  example  was  followed  by  the  ancient  church, 
as  Vossius  hath  shown,  by  producing  many  testimonies 
from  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers," — -Disp.  I  de  Bap» 
tismo. 

Vitringa :  "  The  act  of  baptizing,  is  the  immersion  of 
believers  in  water.  This  expresses  the  force  of  the  word. 
Thus  also  it  was  performed  by  Christ  and  the  Apos- 
ties." iph.  Sanct.  Theolo. 

Zanchius :  "  The  ancient  church  used  to  immerse 
those  that  were  baptized.  Thus,  Christ  went  down  into 
Jordan  and  was  baptized  5  as  also  others  that  were  bap- 
tized by  John.  Of  this  thing,  and  of  immersion,  the 
passage  of  the  people  through  the  midst  of  the  sea 
was  a  type,  concerning  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  1  Cor. 
10:  2."— Opera.  Tom.  VI,  p.  217. 

Grotius  :  "  That  baptism  used  to  be  performed  by  im. 
mersion,  and  not  by  pouring,  appears  both  from  the  pro- 
per signification  of  the  word,  and  the  places  chosen  for 
the  administration  of  the  rite,  John  3 :  23 ;  Acts  8:  38. 
And  also  from  the  many  allusions  of  the  apostles,  which 
cannot  be  referred  to  sprinkling,  Rom.  6  :  3;  1  Col.  2 
12." — Zpud.  Solum. 

G.  J.  Vossius :  "  That  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Apos- 
tles immersed  persons  whom  they  baptized,  there  is  no 
doubt.  For  thus  we  read  :  '  And  they  were  baptized  in 
Jordon.  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water,'  Matt.  3:  6,  16.  It  is 
also  written,  John  3 :  23 :  '  John  baptized  in  Enon,  near 
to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there.*     And, 


244  THE    TSUL   GF 

Acts  8  :  38,  it  is  said  :  '  They  both  went  down  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch.'  And  that  the  an- 
cient church  followed  these  examples,  is  very  clearly 
evinced  by  innumerable  testimonies  of  the  Fathers." — 
Disputat.  de  Bap.  Disp. 

Bossuet :  "  The  baptism  of  St.  John  the  Baptist, 
which  served  for  a  preparation  to  that  of  Jesus  Christ, 
was  performed  by  plunging.  In  fine,  we  read  not  in 
Scripture,  that  baptism  was  otherwise  administered  ;  and 
we  are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by  the  acts  of  councils 
and  by  the  ancient  Rituals,  that  for  thirteen  hundred 
years,  it  was  thus  administered  throughout  the  whole 
Church,  as  far  as  possible." — Stennet  against  Russen,  p. 
175. 

Venema  :  "  It  is  without  controversy  that  baptism,  in 
the  Primitive  Church,  was  administered  by  immersion 
into  water,  and  not  by  sprinkling." 

Dr.  A.  Clark  :  "  That  the  baptism  of  John  was  by 
plunging  the  body,  (after  the  same  manner  as  the  wash- 
ing of  unclean  persons,  and  the  baptism  of  proselytes 
was,)  seems  to  appear  from  those  things  which  are  related 
of  him,  namely  :  That  he  baptized  in  Jordan  j  that  he 
baptized  in  Enon,  because  there  was  much  water  there, 
and  that  Christ,  being  baptized,  came  up  out  of  the  water, 
to  which  that  seems  to  be  parallel,  Acts  S :  38." — Com. 
at  the  end  of  Mark. 

Mosheim  :  "  The  exhortations  of  this  respectable  mes- 
senger (John)  were  not  without  effect,  and  those  who, 
moved  by  his  solemn  admonitions,  had  formed  the  reso- 
lution of  correcting  their  evil  dispositions,  and  amending 


MR.  PEUOBAPTIST.  245 

their  lives,  were  initiated  into  the  kingdom  of  the  Re- 
deemer by  the  ceremony  of  immersion,  or  baptism." — 
Char.  Hist.  p.  25. 

We  might  add  Neander,  and  a  host  of  other  Pedobap- 
tists,  to  confirm  our  view  of  the  New  Testament  bap- 
tism. These  willing  concessions  to  the  fact  of  immersion 
in  New  Testament  times,  when  all  their  denominational 
interests  forbid  it,  show  the  strength  of  the  evidence  in 
its  favor,  which  ought  to  be  irresistible  to  the  candid 
inquirer  after  the  truth.  And  by  thus  testifying  to  im- 
mersion in  New  Testament  times,  they  fully  confirm  the 
meaning  we  have  given  to  the  prepositions  construed 
with  the  verb  baptizo. 

BAPTISM    AND    BURIAL. 

We  have  only  a  few  remarks  to  make,  in  reply  to  the 
argument  of  the  defendant's  Counsel,  against  the  sym- 
bolic character  of  baptism. 

1.  This  new  theory  of  baptism,  in  its  design,  as  pre- 
sented in  his  argument,  deserves  some  consideration  at 
our  hands,  because  he  offers  it  to  us  with  confidence.  It 
must  be  remembered  by  us,  that  this  new  theory  was 
generated  in  modern  ti?nes,  to  invalidate  the  symbolic 
character  of  baptism,  as  it  is  taught  by  the  distinguished 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  in  Rom.  6th,  and  Col.  2d  ;  and 
to  make  void  the  support  given  to  his  symbolic  repre- 
sentation of  baptism  by  the  Christian  Fathers  and  the 
Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century.  A  theory  that  con- 
templates the  sacrifice  of  all  their  testimony  concerning 
the  symbolic  character  of  baptism,  must  bear  its  truth 


246  THE    TRIAL    OF 

fulness  upon  its  face.  That  it  does  so,  is  amply  refuted 
by  the  fact,  that  many  Pedobaptists,  whose  cause  it 
seeks  to  subserve,  reject  it  in  their  interpretation  of  these 
Scriptures.  Its  want  of  reception  by  those  whose  in- 
terest it  is  to  adopt  it,  and  its  want  of  favor  in  the  best 
ages  of  the  church,  is  an  ample  bar  to  its  admission  by 
us.  We  are  certainly  warranted  in  our  conduct,  by  Drs. 
Hill,  Clark,  Chalmers,  and  others  of  equal  notoriety 
among  Pedobaptists. 

This  new  theory,  as  found  in  the  Counsel's  argument, 
is  a  plain  perversion  of  the  language  of  the  Apostle ;  for 
it  says,  "  the  burial  must  be  spiritual,  for  the  resurrection 
is  spiritual."  This  statement  finds  no  authority  from 
these  Scriptures,  but  they  do  teach  plainly,  that  those 
baptized,  were  buried  and  planted  in  the  likeness  of 
Christ's  death  and  burial,  and  it  was  done  in,  and  by 
baptism.  The  resurrection  out  of  the  water  to  them, 
was  a  likeness  of  Christ's  resurrection  out  of  the  grave. 
The  great  matter  in  these  passages  of  Scripture  is  that 
of  likeness  exhibited  in  baptism.  This  fact  must  make 
void  this  ingenious  theory,  for  you  know  it  teaches  that 
this  baptism  is  a  spiritual  one,  noting  a  reality  in  itself, 
and  not  a  likeness.  As  a  reality,  marking  the  introduc- 
tion of  those  persons  into  Christian  life,  it  can  not  with 
propriety  be  said  to  be  only  a  likeness  to  a  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection,  because  in  spiritual  baptism  these  are 
contemptated  as  realities  in  this  moral  transition,  and 
not  a  mere  resemblance  to  them. 

3.  Admitting  this  new  theory  to  be  the  true  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures,  it  will  follow  necessarily  that 


mk.  r-EDOBArmr.  24T 

literal  baptism  is  a  burial  and  resurrection.  Spiritual 
baptism  from  a  necessity  must  find  its  origin  and  name 
in  literal  baptism,  because  without  a  literal  baptism  we 
could  have  no  knowledge  of  the  spirit's  operations  under 
this  name.  If  there  is  no  burial  in  literal  baptism,  there 
could  be  none  in  spiritual  baptism  ;  because,  as  their  ar- 
gument teaches  a  burial  in  the  spiritual,  it  must  also  be 
in  the  literal.  Baptizo  imports  the  action  in  both  of 
these  baptisms.  The  spiritual  holds  only  the  idea  of 
immersion  as  its  action,  because  it  contemplates  a  burial ; 
and  the  literal  baptism  only  makes  the  same  claim  for 
its  action,  and  it  gave  authority  to  the  spiritual  to  exer- 
cise the  same  right,  in  virtue  of  its  native  power  to  im- 
part it. 

4>.  Let  us  notice  the  witnesses  whom  he  read  in  sup- 
port of  this  new  theory — Dr.  Rice  and  Professor  Stuart. 
Their  testimony  should  have  no  influence  on  the  minds 
of  the  jury,  when  they  come  to  decide  the  weight  of  the 
evidence  for  the  symbolic  character  of  baptism,  because 
it  is  unsupported  by  our  most  learned  interpreters  of  our 
laws,  and  is  designed  to  foster  disloyalty  to  the  Jaw 
of  baptism  as  originally  commanded.  The  single  fact, 
that  their  testimony  stands  confronted  by  the  undis- 
turbed understanding  of  baptism  being  a  burial,  for 
centuries  after  the  Apostle  Paul  described  It  in  the 
Scriptures  referred  to,  is  sufficient.  Until  this  new 
theory  is  supported  by  veritable  authority,  we  are  bound 
to  submit  to  the  uninterrupted  exposition  of  the  doctrine 
of  these  passages,  by  the  administrators  of  the  law  for 
sixteen  hundred  years. 


SiS  THE    TBIAL    OF 

5.  We  could  add  a  large  number  of  PecEobaptist  wit- 
nesses to  those  we  offered  under  this  argument.  You 
can  eon  suit  the  testimony  of  Drs.  Hill  and  A.  Clark,  as 
it  may  be  found  in  their  cross-examination  by  us,  when 
they  were  offered  as  witnesses  far  the  Prisoner.  See  p» 
317  and  H9.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  detain  you 
any  longer  in  elucidating  this  argument  of  the  symbolic 
meaning  to  baptism,  because  we  have  for  its  support  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  the  practice  of  the  church,  and  the 
light  of  sixteen  hundred  years  to  illuminate  its  pathway 
from  Paul  the  Apostle  down  to  the  information,  and1,. 
with  few  exceptions,  from  the  Reformation  down  to  Bt. 
Chalmers. 

CHURCH   HISTORY- 

We  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  CounsePs  rep- 
resentation of  the  history  of  the  church,  on  the  subject 
of  the  action  of  Christian  baptism. 

!.  Ke  commences  to  unfold  this  history  with  this 
assumption,  "  for  some  years  after  the  apostles'  days,  we 
have  no  reliable  facts  on  the  manner  of  baptizing."  This 
assumption  plainly  admits  there  is  no  evidence  offered 
during  this  period  that  supports  his  views  of  baptizing. 
This  is  practically  giving  up  the  question  m  controversy 
so  far  as  this  age  of  the  church  is  concerned.  After 
making  this  admission,  which  is  death  to  his  cause,  he 
dares  to  come  to  this  conclusion,  "the  manner  of  bap* 
tizing  was  what  the  church  thought  suitable  and  con- 
venient." This  is  a  conclusion  without  premises,  be- 
gaueej  he  gays,  there  are  no  reliable  facts  from  iheehurcb 


MR*  riiUOBAPTlST.  '2i^ 

of  that  age !  This  certainly  puts  logic  to  shame,  There 
is  another  item  equally  obnoxious:  that  the  church 
adopted  a  practice  "  suitable  and  convenient."  Who 
gave  the  church  this  authority,  for  it  is  not  to  be  found  in. 
her  constitution  1  It  would  in  its  exercise  supersede  the 
authority  of  Christ.  It  will  not  do  to  brand  the  church 
with  conduct  so  infamous,  without  evidence.  But  this 
must  be  done  to  give  color  to  his  assumption.  Its  self, 
refutation,  however,  is  sufficient  for  us  on  this  occasion. 

In  relation  to  this  early  period  in  the  church's  history, 
we  have  the  Epistle  said  to  be  written  by  Barnabas.  I 
know  the  authorship  is  disputed,  but  its  antiquity  is  not 
contested  as  far  as  1  know.  The  document  bearing  this 
name  comes  down  to  us  from  an  early  age,  informing  us  of 
some  of  the  essential  characteristics  of  baptism  in  its 
action.  Let  us  hear  now  what  it  says,  "  we  go  down 
into  the  water  full  of  sins  and  pollution,  but  come  up 
again  bringing  forth  fruit  in  our  hearts."  The  two  cir- 
cumstances here  related  to  the  action  of  baptism,  do 
essentially  belong  to  immersion  alone.  It  is  made  very 
obvious  here  that  when  the  second  century  set  in,  there 
was  a  common  understanding  that  the  action  of  baptism 
was  only  immersion.  Bead  the  authorities  reported  by 
Fedobaptists  in  evidence,  and  see  if  they  do  not  fully 
sustain  our  conclusion. 

2.  His  next  assumption  is,  "  at  a  later  period  in  the 
church's  history  we  find  a  variety  of  modes  of  baptism. 
These  were  trine  immersion  naked,  pouring,"  &c.  This 
statement  of  the  after  history  of  the  church  is  not  a  fair 
one,  as  we  shall  now  show. 


£50  THE    TRIAL   Oi 

The  evidence  which  we  have  from  church  history  ifl 
the  testimony  offered,  teaches  us  that  the  subjects  of 
baptism  were  not  left  to  decide  the  manner  of  their  bap- 
tism, as  the  Counsel  concludes.  That  trine  immersion 
naked  was  practised!  in  the  days  of  Tertullian,  will  not 
Be  disputed;  but  he  himself  says  that  three  times  was 
more  than  the  Lord  commanded.  How  can  this  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  statement  of  the  Counsel,  that  the  ancients 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  choosing  between  this  trine  im- 
mersion  naked  and  pouring  1  This  conclusion  of  his  is 
self-destructive,  for  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  they 
would  refuse  the  "suitable  and! convenient  baptism,"  and 
choose  the  one  "  revolting  to  humanity."  The  two  could 
not  on  his  principle  co-exist  in  the  same  age. 

We  are  taught  by  the  evidence,  that  there  was  no 
other  baptism  but  immersion  throughout  the  whole 
church,  until  the  third  century,  when  pouring  all  around 
on  a  person  on  a  sick  bed  was  introduced,  as  an  innova* 
tion,  and  contrary  to  the  established  and  universal  prac- 
tice of  immersion.  The  reason  for  introducing  this  in- 
novation for  cases  of  supposed  necessity,  where  immer- 
sion could  not  be  practised,  may  be  found  in  the  doctrine 
then  held — baptismal  regeneration.  In  the  Eastern 
church  this  innovation  found  no  countenance,  but  was 
opposed,  and  also  by  many  in  the  .Roman  church.  This 
whole  subject  will  more  properly  come  under  our  con- 
sideration, when  we  come  to  that  part  of  our  address  in 
which  we  will  prove  the  Prisoner  guilty  of  the  crime  of 
supplanting  immersion  in  baptism. 

The  church  knew  of  no  baptism  but  immersion,  until 


MR.   PEDOBAFTIST.  251 

the  introduction  of  the  innovation  named,  and  this  was 
limited  by  their  action,  which  compelled  all  in  health  to 
be  immersed  without  exception.  But  the  right  of  choice 
was  unknown  to  the  Fathers  between  the  innovation  and 
the  baptism  that  claimed  Scriptural  authority. 

4»j  His  last  assumption  is,  "  we  do  not  find  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Christian  Fathers,  that  proscriptive  policy  on 
the  mode  of  baptism  now  common  among  Baptists." — 
We  have  already  refuted  this  assumption.  The  fact  is, 
as  we  have  said  before,  they  knew  of  but  one  action  in 
baptism  ;  and  at  first  they  refused  in  the  Western  church 
to  call  the  innovation  introduced  for  cases  of  necessity 
by  this  name.  And  this  fact  accounts  for  the  opposition 
to  the  innovation,  and  their  refusal  to  recognize  it  as  a 
legal  baptism.  So  important  was  baptism  in  their  judg- 
ment, that  they  refused  to  recognize  the  baptism  of  a 
church  not  of  their  own  communion,  and  for  this  reason 
you  find  them  re-baptizing  those  that  passed  from  one 
communion  to  another,  although  there  was  no  difference 
in  their  administration  of  baptism. 

We  would  have  been  pleased  if  the  Counsel  had  pre- 
sented the  evidence^  upon  which  he  relies  to  prove  the 
supposed  fact,  that  the  Fathers  understood  baptism  to  in- 
clude the  actions  of  immersion,  sprinkling,  and  pouring, 
as  its  legitimate  modes.  There  is  no  such  testimony 
hefore  us,  and  it  is  not  likely  to  be  found.  Their  sen- 
timents and  conduct  on  the  subject,  differ  materially 
from  those  of  modern  Pedobaptists,  because  they  are 
never  found  talking  of  the  modes  of  baptism.  That  dis- 
covery was  not   yet  made,  but  remained   for   a   later 


25 '2  itiE  miAL  of 

period  and  the  Western  church  to  unfold.  Let  Pedo- 
baptists  come  back  to  the  standard  of  the  Fathers  on 
baptism,  and  then  you  will  find  them  always  immersing, 
except  in  cases  of  necessity.  When  they  come  up  to 
this  standard,  there  will  be  no  trouble  in  bringing  them 
up  to  that  of  the  New  Testament,  by  abrogating  the  in- 
novation for  cases  of  necessity  :  because  this  standard 
makes  no  distinction,  in  the  action  of  baptism  com- 
manded, for  any  of  its  subjects. 

Let  us  now  call  your  attention  to  the  facts  which  the 
evidence  of  history  fully  establishes. 

1.  The  uniform  practice  of  immersion  continued  in 
the  whole  church  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  except  in 
cases  of  necessity  in  the  Western  church. 

2.  The  cases  of  necessity  were  limited  by  the  charac- 
ter of  the  innovation — never  designed  to  be  general  in 
the  church,  because  it  laid  no  claims  to  Divine  autho- 
rity. 

3.  The  Roman  church  practised  only  immersion  as 
baptism  until  the  innovation  named,  and  continued  to  do 
so  as  a  general  practice  for  thirteen  hundred  years. 

4.  The  Eastern  church,  which  was  established  by  the 
apostles,  has  maintained  the  invariable  practice  of  im- 
mersion in  baptism,  from  its  origin  down  to  the  present 
time. 

5.  The  facts  which  support  the  above  conclusions  are 
reported  to  us  by  Pedobaptists,  whose  interests  called 
for  any  other  representation  of  the  practice  of  the 
church. 

6.  The  facts  of  history  will  remain  forever  a  living 


MR.  rEBOBAPTlBT.  253 

and  undeniable  proof,  that  the  church  'understood  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  in  the  Constitutional  law,  to  be  im- 
merse. 

Let  us  close  this  branch  of  our  subject  in  the  language 
of  Professor  Stuart :  "  It  is  a  thing  made  out,  viz  : — The 
ancient  practice  of  immersion.  So,  indeed,  all  the  writers 
who  have  thoroughly  investigated  this  subject  conclude. 
I  know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times  which  seems  to 
be  more  clearly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible 
for  any  candid  man  who  examines  the  subject  to  deny  this." 
Stuart,  p.  49. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  invite  your  attention  to  the 
Counsel's  reply  to  the  evidence  we  offered,  to  sustain  the 
charge  made  against  the  Prisoner,  of  changing  the  action 
of  Christian  baptism.  His  reply  is  founded  upon  several 
assumptions,  which,  if  they  were  true,  would  invalidate 
the  evidence  we  offered,  and  prove  the  doctrine  he  teaches 
in  relation  to  this  part  of  our  discussion — "a  change 
from  one  manner  of  baptizing  to  another."  His  whole 
premises  being  false,  his  conclusions  can  be  no  better,  as 
we  shall  show.     Let  us  note  his  assumptions. 

].  "All  the  authorities  offered  in  evidence  by  Mr. 
Baptist,  fail  to  make  out  for  baptizo  an  invariable  mode." 
He  means  here  by  "  mode,"  what  we  denote  by  "  action." 
This  judgment  expressed  by  him,  is  only  a  baseless  as* 
sumption.  Does  not  all  the  testimony  offered  by  us, 
teach  immersion  to  be  the  only  original  action  of  bap- 
tism 1  A  mode  of  immersion  has  nothing  to  do  in  this 
controversy ;  because  no  mode  is  commanded.  This 
assumption  does  not  deserve  a  respectful  hearing,  until 


&f)4  tHE   TRIAL   oh 

it  is  supported  by  something  like  evidence.  Nothing  of 
this  character  is  found  supporting  it.  If  there  was  proof 
at  his  hand,  why  did  he  not  present  it,  for  he  is  too 
learned  and  intelligent  not  to  know,  that  it  was  essential 
to  his  proposition  1  Have  we  not  presented  our  witnesses 
in  classes  to  prove  the  factj  that  immersion  was  the  thing 
commanded  in  the  ordinance!  Their  testimony  remains 
unimpeached  by  all  that  the  Counsel  has  said  or  done  to 
the  contrary* 

2.  "  The  Scriptures  do  not  determine  the  mode  of 
baptism."  If  he  means  by  "  mode  of  baptism,"  a  mode 
of  immersion,  we  have  no  objection.  His  real  meaning 
is,  that  immersion,  sprinkling,  and  pouring  are  modes  of 
baptism.  This  assumption  is  without  a  tittle  of  evidence 
from  the  Scriptures  to  support  it,  and  it  is  contrary  to 
the  facts  in  testimony.  He  must  conclude  we  are  bound 
to  believe  without  an  apology  for  evidence.  This  may 
be  convenient  for  Pedobaptists,  but  not  for  a  legal  inves- 
tigation. Immersion  as  the  action  of  baptism  in  the  con- 
stitutional law,  is  the  only  fact  in  evidence,  and,  from 
necessity,  must  be  the  action  commanded  by  Christ. 
Sprinkling  and  pouring,  as  actions  of  baptism,  find  no 
countenance  from  Him, in  anything  He  said  or  did.  For 
this  reason,  the  church  for  two  hundred  years  knew  no 
such  actions  of  baptism.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  when  the 
innovation  was  introduced  in  the  third  century,  that  it  was 
noted  as  a  novelty  and  opposed.  And  its  being  confined 
to  the  Western  church,  speaks  in  volumes  against  the 
Divine  authority  of  sprinkling  and  pouring  as  actions  of 
baptism. 


3.  "In  warm  climates,  where  bathing  is  a  luxury,  we 
find  baptism  by  immersion  more  general;  but  in  cold 
climates  we  find  sprinkling,"  &c.  The  historical  facts 
in  evidence  are  a  complete  refutation  of  this  assumption. 
They  teach  beyond  a  doubt,  that  immersion  only  as  bap- 
tism, was  known  throughout  the  whole  church  until  the 
third  century,  when  pouring  around  the  sick  was  intro* 
duced  as  an  exception  without  Divine  authority.  And 
further,  immersion  continued  to  be  the  general  practice 
down  to  the  thirteenth  century.  This  exceptional  bap* 
tism  was  confined  to  the  Western  church.  The  Eastern 
church  knew  no  other  baptism,  from  its  origin  down  to 
the  present  time,  but  in  immersion  in  water.  Climate 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  introduction  of  this  innova- 
tion of  pouring  in  cases  of  necessity  as  a  substitute  for 
immersion.  The  testimony  on  this  point  proves  that  the 
false  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration  was  the  primary 
cause  of  its  introduction,  and  not  the  one  offered  by  the 
Counsel.  The  facts  in  evidence  prove  the  Counsel's 
proposition  is  only  fiction,  called  into  being  by  the  neces- 
sities of  his  position,  to  deceive  the  jury  and  lead  the 
public  mind  astray. 

4.  "The  Christian  Fathers  did  account  baptism  by 
sprinkling,  &c,  valid  baptism."  This  needs  evidence  to 
sustain  it.  Without  proof  of  the  statement,  it  is  worth 
nothing.  The  fact  is,  the  Fathers  knew  of  no  Scriptural 
baptism,  but  immersion  in  water.  The  introduction  of 
sick  bed  baptism  as  a  substitute,  in  one  part  of  the  church, 
as  an  exceptional  baptism,  confined  to  cases  of  necessity, 
was  opposed,  and  those  who  were  its  subjects,  were  held 


SSfi  THE    TRIAL   Ql 

to  be  doubtful  Christians.  This  was  done;,  because  their 
accounted  baptism  was  not  a  scriptural  one.  After  the 
church  was  reconciled  to  this  innovation  as  an  exceptional 
baptism,  why  did  she  still  require  all  in  health  to  be 
immersed,  if  pouring  was  scriptural  1  The  Counsel's 
statement  of  their  conduct,  and  their  real  conduct,  are 
antagonistic.  Did  the  Fathers  in  the  Eastern  church 
ever  sanction  and  practice,  in  connection  with  immer- 
sion, this  exceptional  baptism  1  There  are  no  facts  of 
this  kind  in  evidence.  We  have  already  noticed  his 
positions  in  relation  to  the  change  of  immersion  in  bap» 
tism,  as  testified  to  by  Pedobaptist  witnesses;  but  let 
us  examine  their  testimony  somewhat  in  detail.  This 
examination  will  show  how  bold  the  Counsel's  assump- 
tions are.     The  following  are  found  in  their  testimony  : 

The  right  to  change  from  immersion,  which  was  the 
original  action  of  baptism  commanded.  Their  apology 
is,  it  is  only  a  circumstance,  or,  that  climate  demands  an 
action  in  the  ordinance  suitable  to  it.  This  is  the  mod- 
ern Pedobaptist  apology,  but  anciently  the  reason  as- 
signed was  baptismal  regeneration.  The  right  is  clearly 
assumed,  on  whatever  ground  they  place  it.  All  the  wit- 
nesses on  this  point  fully  testify  to  the  fact,  that  the 
church  possesses  the  right  to  change  immersion  as  prac- 
tised by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Is  not  this  the  strong- 
est kind  of  evidence,  in  favor  of  our  position  1  Those 
whose  denominational  interests  forbid  them  to  testify  in 
our  favor,  yet  give  their  testimony  in  opposition  to  their 
own  practice  being  divinely  appointed  and  they  do  this, 
too,  with  the  knowledge  that  it  will  be  used   against 


rut.  pEoosArnsT.  2&7 

them  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject.  With  these  con- 
siderations before  them,  they  testify  to  the  fact,  that  the 
change  was  made  in  conformity  with  the  right  assumed. 
If,  as  some  modern  Pedobaptists  teach,  their  practice  is 
to  be  found  in  the  original  law,  a  change  was  impossible  ; 
and  to  testify  to  a  change,  when  it  did  not  take  place,  is 
not  a  possibility.  We  are  bound  by  ail  the  laws  of  evi 
dence,  to  believe  the  party  that  testifies  to  a  change 
founded  on  the  apologies  offered  ;  because  the  evidence 
clearly  proves  that  baptizo  in  the  law  only  signifies  to 
immerse,  and  in  the  language  of  Calvin,  "  it  is  certain 
immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church."  We 
reject  the  opinions  of  modern  Pedobaptists,  because, 
unsupported  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  language, 
and  the  practice  of  the  church  Under  its  first  appoint- 
ment. 

2.  We  have  the  origin  of  this  change  noted  and 
named  by  Dr.  Wall.  The  case  recorded  and  found  in 
the  evidence  given  by  the  Doctor,  was  that  of  Novatian, 
who,  in  the  third  century  was  poured  around  with  water 
on  his  sick  bed.  Wall  says  of  him,  after  his  restoration 
to  health,  "  he  was  elected  by  one  pait  of  the  clergy  and 
people  of  Rome  to  be  their  Bishop.  Cornelius  (his 
opposing  and  successful  candidate)  in  a  letter  to  Fabius, 
Bishop  of  xlntioch,  vindicated  his  own  right,  and  showed 
that  Novatian  came  not  canonically  to  his  orders  of 
priesthood,  much  less  was  he  capable  of  being  chosen 
Bishop,  for  that  ail  the  clergy  and  a  great  many  of  the 
laity  were  against  his  being  ordained  presbyter,  because 
it  was  not  lawful  (they  said)  for  any  one   that  had  beer* 


258  THE    TRIAL    Otf 

baptized  (poured  around)  in  his  bed  in  time  of  sickness, 
as  he  had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any  office  of  the  clergy." 
From  this  extract  from  Wall,  we  learn  the  following 
things : 

1.  It  was  a  novelty  to  baptize  by  pouring  water  around 
a  person  on  a  sick  bed.  This  is  evident  from  the  doubts 
entertained  of  the  person's  Christianity.  Cyprian  under- 
takes to  settle  this  question,  in  reply  to  a  question  from 
Magnus,  whether  such  were  "  lawful  Christians."  The 
question  and  answer  could  never  have  been  proposed, 
and  transmitted  to  us,  if  pouring  per  se,  was  a  scriptural 
action  of  baptism.  You  can  never  account  for  it  on  Pe« 
dobaptist  professions,  that  pouring  is  one  of  the  actions 
of  baptism  commanded  by  Christ,  and  practised  by  the 
church.     Let  them  try  it. 

2.  The  opposition  it  met  with,  proves  it  to  have  been 
an  innovation.  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Kome,  says  in  the 
above  extract,  that  "all  the  clergy,  and  a  great  many  of 
the  laity,  where  against  his  being  ordained  Presbyter, 
because  it  was  not  lawful  for  any  one  that  had  been  bap- 
tized (poured  around)  on  his  bed  in  time  of  sickness,  as 
he  had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any  office  of  the  clergy." 
Brenner,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian,  says:  "These 
latter  methods  (sprinkling  and  affusion)  of  baptism  were 
called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited."  Is  it  not  un- 
reasonable to  suppose  that  a  common  practice,  sanctioned 
by  the  Divine  law,  and  approved  by  the  church,  would 
meet  such  violent  opposition  at  first,  and  afterwards  be 
interdicted  by  a  Christian  Council,  if  the  position  of 
modern   Pedobaptiets    was    well    founded  1      The   only 


mr.  r£DosArrisT.  259 

answer  that  can  consistently  be  given,  is,  that  the  suppo- 
sition is  not  possible.  1  know  it  may  be  said  that  they 
were  only  prohibited  the  office  of  the  clergy,  if  their 
baptism  unfitted  them  for  this  office,  in  the  eyes  of  a 
Christian  Council,  I  am  sure  there  is  not  a  solitary  in- 
stance of  a  baptism  that  was  acknowledged  to  be  scrip- 
tural, which  ever  was  a  ground  of  interdiction.  This 
opposition  and  prohibition  are  conclusive  evidences  of 
its  human  origin,  and  that  it  was  an  unauthorized  inno- 
vation. 

3.  That  this  practice  was  an  innovation  is  evident, 
from  the  question  proposed  to  Cyprian  by  Magnus.  We 
shall  give  our  quotations  from  Stuart's  translation  of 
Cyprian's  reply.  The  question  was  :  "  Are  they  to  be 
regarded  as  lawful  Christians,  when  they  have  not  been 
bathed  with  saving  water,  (immersed  by  baptism.)" — 
Could  a  question  of  this  kind  be  proposed  concerning 
those  poured  around  for  baptism,  if  Christ  commanded 
it,  and  the  church  followed  the  command  1  These  two 
things  Pedobaptists  teach  to  be  true,  but  they  are  never 
found  proposing  a  question  of  this  kind.  What  is  the 
reason  1  It  may  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  ancients 
differed  widely  from  them  concerning  the  origin  of  the 
practice,  and  the  cause  that  introduced  it.  This  fact 
shows  the  propriety  of  the  question,  and  suggests  the 
reason  of  the  silence  of  the  others.  Are  we  not  com- 
pelled, from  the  question  proposed,  to  accept  the  conclu- 
sion, that  the  practice  was  unknown  in  the  earlier  history 
of  the  church  1  To  come  to  any  other  conclusion  seems 
to  be  impossible ;  because  Magnus  would  have  known  it 


260  THE    TIUAL    OF 

to  be  a  practice  that  came  down  to  them,  sanctioned  by 
the  church,  if  it  had  existed  in  his  day  as  a  common 
practice.  How  could  he,  with  this  supposed  fact  before 
him,  have  doubted  that  they  were  "  lawful  Christians'!" 
When  this  practice  was  received  into  favor  by  the 
Western  church,  and  was  extended  in  after  times  to  those 
in  health,  we  hear  no  questions  like  that  Magnus  pro- 
posed. His  question  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the 
novelty  of  the  practice,  and  not  on  the  supposition  of  its 
previous  existence.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  his 
question  does  not  give  the  least  apology  for  the  practice 
of  this  baptism  by  those  in  health.  It  only  concerned  the 
sick  and  dying. 

4-  This  may  be  proven  to  be  an  innovation  from  Cy- 
prian's reply  to  the  question  proposed  by  Magnus.  His 
answer  will  show  how  this  baptism  was  viewed  in  his 
day.     His  reply  suggests  the  following  things: 

1.  Whether  those  poured  around  on  their  sick  beds 
were  "  lawful  Christians  "  was  a  mere  matter  of  opinion. 
Let  us  hear  him  speak  for  himself:  "In  regard  to  this, 
let  not  our  diffidence  and  modesty  hinder  any  one  to  think 
according  to  his  own  opinion,  and  practice  as  he  thinks." 
He  in  this  language  gives  all  the  liberty  to  judge  of  this 
matter  as  they  think  best,  and  to  act  in  conformity  with 
their  judgment.  If  it  was  a  Divine  institution,  no  such 
liberty  of  opinion  could  have  been  sanctioned  or  tolera- 
ted. He  proceeds  to  give  his  view  of  this  baptism,  in 
these  words  :  "  So  far  as  my  humble  opinion  goes,  I 
think  the  Divine  benefits  (of  the  ordinance)  are  in  no 
degree  diminished  or  cut  short,  nor  that  any  thing  of  the 


MR.    PEDCB.VPTItST.  20  1 

Divine  bounty  is  at  all  diminished."  He  only  proposes 
to  give  his  own  judgment  of  it,  and  this  finds  no  higher 
authority  than  his  position  and  learning.  That  in  itself, 
cannot  give  Divine  authority  to  a  human  innovation,  be- 
cause it  would  subvert  the  great  principle,  "  the  Bible 
and  the  Bible  alone,  teaches  the  religion  of  Protestants." 

2.  His  judgment  of  this  baptism,  is  not  founded  on 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  Constitution.  This  is  ob- 
vious to  all  who  will  read  his  reply  in  evidence.  It  is 
also  true  that  he  lived  within  two  hundred  years  of  some 
of  the  apostles,  and  with  his  position  in  the  church,  hia 
learning  as  a  Father,  and  with  superior  facilities  of 
knowing  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  law,  and  its  use 
in  his  own  times,  he  could  not  have  failed  to  know  (if 
knowable)  that  which  Pedobaptists  teach  in  these  days, 
viz  :  that  the  practice  of  pouring,  as  an  action  in  baptism, 
was  authorized  in  the  constitutional  law.  This  Pedo- 
haptist  idea  is  neither  suggested  nor  named  in  his  reply*! 
To  him,  pouring  around,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances 
named,  was  only  allowable  as  a  matter  of  opinion,  and 
not  authorized  by  the  baptism  of  the  New  Testament. 

3.  His  opinion  of  this  baptism  is  not  supported  by  an 
appeal  to  the  practice  of  Christ  or  his  apostles  to  justify 
it.  This  is  the  only  legitimate  appeal  in  support  of  any 
Christian  institution.  Without  their  sanction,  it  is  called 
a  human  institution,  and  all  men  may  receive  or  reject 
at  their  pleasure.  Indeed,  they  are  bound  to  reject  it,  if 
it  comes  in  conflict  with  a  Divine  institution.  These  are 
Protestant  axioms.  But  had  he  lived  in  our  day,  he 
could  have  learned  from  Pedobaptists,  that  sprinkling  and 


2$3  THE    TRIAL   OV 

pouring,  as  actions  of  baptism,  were  more  common  in 
their  day  than  immersion !  Poor  Cyprian  !  how  ignorant 
you  would  appear  on  this  subject,  were  you  to  come 
back  and  associate  with  some  of  your  modern  brethren  ! 
You  certainly  understood  the  history  of  the  church  in 
your  own  day  on  the  action  of  baptism,  and  also  its  his- 
tory on  the  same  subject  before  your  ministration  as  a 
bishop,  and  yet  you  appeal  not  to  it,  to  sustain  this  ex- 
ceptional baptism.  If  this  practice  was  sanctioned  by 
the  church  in  his  day,  or  before  him,  an  appeal  to  its 
sanction  as  authoritative  would  have  been  natural.  The 
reason  he  did  not  make  this  appeal  is  evident  from  his  re- 
ply— the  practice  was  new  and  unknown  to  the  churches, 
and  therefore  was  a  matter  for  all  to  decide  for  them- 
selves. 

4.  His  appeal  to  the  sprinklings  of  the  law  to  justify 
his  opinion,  and  to  recommend  the  practice  to  the  ac- 
quiescence of  the  church,  is  in  itself,  indisputable  evi- 
dence, that  pouring  around  in  baptism  was  a  human  in- 
novation— unsupported  by  the  authority  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  the  early  practice  of  the  church.  To  pass 
by  the  only  legitimate  authority  that  originated  and 
sanctioned  Christian  baptism,  and  to  seek  support  from 
a  source  where  Christian  baptism  is  unknown,  must  be  a 
self-convincing  fact  of  its  human  origin.  If  he  could 
have  found  authority  from  the  New  Testament  and  the 
early  practice  of  the  church,  and  offered  it  in  reply  to 
Magnus,  this  would  have  silenced  the  scruples  of  any 
Christian  man,  for  it  was  the  only  source  of  legitimate 
authority  acknowledged  by  all. 


MR.  PSDOBAPTIST.  3G."J 

The  truth  seems  to  be,  if  such  convincing  evidence 
had  been  at  his  command,  he  would,  from  the  nature  of 
the  question  proposed  to  him,  have  offered  it.  It  is  also 
true,  if  this  evidence  was  common,  Magnus  himself  had 
opportunities  of  knowing  it.  It  is  not  reasonable  to 
suppose,  that  he  was  ignorant  of  a  common  practice  in 
the  church,  or  whether  it  was  sanctioned  by  Divine 
authority. 

5.  Notice  his  effort  to  quiet  the  opposition  to  this 
practice,  and  to  reconcile  the  church  to  it.  Let  us  hear 
him  speak  for  himself:  "Nor  should  any  be  troubled, 
because  sick  persons  are  affused  (poured  round)  since  they 
obtain  the  favor  of  God."  How  could  persons  be  in 
trouble  about  it,  and  oppose  it,  if  it  was  as  scriptural  as 
immersion'?  There  is  no  solution  of  this  difficulty,  ex- 
cept by  acknowledging  it  to  be  an  innovation.  He  seeks 
to  reconcile  the  church  to  this  novelty,  by  assuring 
them,  these  persons,  who  are  poured  around  in  their 
sick-beds,  obtain  the  favor  of  God.  This  was  only  his 
opinion,  unsupported  by  any  promise  made  concerning 
baptisms  of  this  kind.  The  reason  there  is  no  promise 
made  to  such  baptism,  is,  because  they  were  not  pro- 
vided for  in  the  New  Testament.  It  never  contemplated 
them. 

6.  That  it  is  an  innovation,  is  evident  from  the  fact, 
that  it  was  instituted  for  cases  of  necessity,  for  the  sick 
and  dying.  Why  was  it  confined  to  these  cases,  if  it 
had  a  joint  right  with  immersion  as  of  Divine  authority  1 
The  New  Testament  knows  no  such  distinction  and 
diversity — one  baptism  for   the    sick,  and    another   for 


'iOfc  TEE    TRIAL    OF 

those  in  health.  This  is  all  human  in  origin^  and 
human  in  practice.  This  conclusion  is  unavoidable 
from  the  facts  found  in  Cyprian's  reply. 

Notice  next  the  cause  that  called  into  being  this  prac- 
tice — baptismal  regeneration.  This  dogma,  like  the 
practice  in  question,  finds  no  Divine  authority  for  its 
support.  The  practice  was  a  natural  effect  from  a  cause 
of  this  character.  The  conclusion  was  natural,  after  it 
became  an  article  of  faith,  that  those  dying  without  bap- 
tism would  be  lost.  The  next  question  of  moment  natu- 
rally was,  how  shall  we  dispose  of  those  in  sickness, 
who  demand  baptism,  and  yet  are  in  a  state  that  would 
make  immersion  impossible  1  They  were  led  in  the  sub- 
stitution adopted  to  imitate  immersion  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible, by  pouring  water  all  around  the  person,  for  this  is 
the  meaning  of  the  word  used,  to  designate  this  kind  of 
baptism.  The  imagined  importance  of  baptism,  in  all 
cases  for  forgiveness  of  sins,  led  Cyprian  to  legalize  this 
baptism.  The  cause  of  the  practice  being  a  mere  human 
opinion,  the  practice  can  claim  no  higher  origin. 

8.  The  judgment  of  Cyprian,  in  relation  to  this  bap- 
tism, gives  no  plea  for  pouring,  as  the  action  of  baptism 
to  those  in  health.  His  whole  reply  teaches,  that  it  is 
to  be  confined  to  the  sick  and  the  dying.  The  authority 
of  pouring,  in  baptism,  to  those  in  health,  finds  its  origin 
in  a  later  day,  when  it  passed  from  cases  of  necessity  over 
to  those  in  health.  This  fact  is  found  fully  sustained  in 
the  historical  evidence  in  testimony. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  continue  to  give  those  general 
specifications,  warranted,  as   we  think,  from    the  testi- 


MR,  PEDOBAPTIST,  265 

Ittiony  We   have  given,   concerning  this  change   made 
without  Divine  authority. 

3.  This  baptism,  by  pouring  around,  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity, was  made  an  exceptional  baptism.  Before  its  in- 
troduction we  read  of  no  other  baptism  than  by  immer- 
sion. That  it  can  only  have  this  character,  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  it  was  confined  to  cases  of  necessity. 
Beyond  this  boundary  it  had  no  right  to  go.  Why  does 
it  receive  this  singular  character,  if  authorized  by  Di- 
vine  authority  1  The  New  Testament  knows  nothing 
of  an  exceptional  baptism.  Clinic  baptism  rinds  its  ori- 
gin and  authority  some  where  else,  and  this  fact  ought 
to  be  conclusive  evidence  of  its  being  a  human  innova- 
tion. 

4.  The  fact  of  the  change  having  taken  place,  is  fully 
testified  to  by  the  friends  of  the  Prisoner.  This  must 
confound  all  the  arguments  offered  by  modern  Pedobap- 
tists  to  prove  the  origin  of  their  practice  in  the  law  and 
the  early  practice  of  the  church.  It  is  no  source  of  sur- 
prise that  Dr.  Whitby,  is  so  clear  and  explicit  in  his 
testimony,  when  he  says  it  was  done  without  any  "  al- 
lowance from  the  author  of  this  institution,  or  any  license 
from  any  Council  of  the  church."  Why  do  Pedobap- 
tists  speak  in  such  unmistakable  language  of  the  fact  of 
the  change,  if  none  ever  took  place  1  It  is  for  the  Pri- 
soner to  reconcile  it  with  his  profession.  Has  his  Coun- 
sel done  so  1     1  answer  no — never. 

5.  Consider  the  plea  offered   by  these  witnesses  for 

their  practice  of  pouring  in  baptism. 

1.  The  plea  of  the  ancients  for  its  introduction,  and 
12 


2tM>  THE    TRIAL    OF 

their  departure  from  the  primitive  practice  in  cases  of 
necessity,  was  baptismal  regeneration.  Their  practice 
affords  an  apology  founded  on  a  necessity.  This  sup- 
posed necessity  did  not  in  fact  exist,  if  the  New  Testa- 
ment view  of  baptism  be  received  as  authority.  If  their 
view  of  the  essentiality  of  baptism  be  taken,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  New  Testament  representation,  they 
were  thereby  compelled  to  adopt  an  innovation,  adapted 
to  their  mistaken  faith  in  relation  to  the  virtue  of  bap- 
tism. Take  this  away,  and  the  practice  could  not  have 
been  introduced  among  them. 

2.  The  plea  offered  for  pouring  in  baptism,  by  some  of 
the  witnesses,  is  the  difference  "  of  climate  and  country." 
This  plea  is  a  confirming  fact  of  a  change  having  been 
effected.  How  could  the  plea  be  offered  in  way  of  justi- 
fication of  their  conduct,  if  their  practice  is  authorized 
by  the  constitutional  law,  which  all  admit  supersedes  all 
other  authority  on  a  question  of  Christian  obedience  1 
The  two  grounds  assigned  cannot  co-exist  at  the  same 
time,  as  the  foundation  of  pouring  in  baptism.  The 
pleading  of ''climate  and  country"  for  pouring,  is  a 
practical  rejection  of  its  Divine  authority.  The  Eastern 
church  in  all  her  history,  has  held,  without  faltering,  to 
immersion  only  as  Christian  baptism.  She  has  yet  to 
learn  the  doctrine  of  the  Western  church,  set  up  in  these 
days,  to  justify  pouring.  The  reason  is,  the  Scriptures 
knew  no  such  action  in  baptism,  and  this  faith  they  have 
transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another  unimpaired. 

The  ancient  and  modern  Pedobaptists  do  at  least  agree 
in  one  thing  ;  that  they  find  no  Divine  authority  to  sup- 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  267 

port  it,  and  that  a  human  cause  led  to  its  introduction 
in  the  third  century. 

We  have  fully  (I  think)  elucidated  the  argument  that 
charges  the  Prisoner  with  the  guilt  of  this  change ;  and 
that  it  was  introduced  in  the  Western  church  without 
authority  from  the  Scriptures.  This  single  argument 
will  make  void  all  the  arguments  of  modern  Pedobap- 
tists,  for  sprinkling  and  pouring  as  actions  of  baptism. 

We  have  fully  answered  all  the  Counsel's  perversions 
of  the  arguments  and  evidence  offered  to  sustain  our 
position ;  and  we  have  also  shown  the  insufficiency  of 
his  supposed  opposing  evidence  and  arguments.  We  are 
now  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  refutation  of  those  argu- 
ments offered  by  the  Counsel,  independent  of  those  that 
related  directly  to  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  law. 
To  the  consideration  of  these  we  now  invite  your  atten- 
tion. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

This  baptism  is  made  a  strong  plea  for  the  practice  of 
Pedobaptists.  When  they  are  found  discussing  this  bap- 
tism, they  do  it  with  apparent  confidence  of  their  suc- 
cess. To  its  scrutiny  we  invite  your  impartial  attention. 

I.  The  scriptural  view  of  this  baptism.— This  is  important 
to  an  intelligent  judgment,  in  relation  to  so  important  a 
subject. 

1.  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  so  called,  because 
it  is  a  figurative  one,  and  not  a  literal  action  as  the  word 
baptism  imports.  This  seems  to  be  evident,  because  its 
action  refers  to  that  operation  of  the  Spirit  about  which 


268  THE    TRIAL    OF 

we  can  have  no  knowledge,  only  through  the  medium  of 
a  reality  of  which  we  have  knowledge,  selected  to  com- 
municate the  fact  of  its  operation  to  us.  Is  not  this  pro- 
cess the  adopted  law  by  which  spiritual  knowledge  is 
communicated  by  Jehovah  to  his  creatures'?  It  is  impos- 
sible for  us  to  receive  spiritual  knowledge  through  any 
other  medium,  than  by  literal  things  already  known. 
Who  would  dare  to  plead  that  spiritual  things  are  like 
literal  things,  to  which  they  are  compared,  in  the  reality 
of  their  substance  and  the  mode  of  their  operation  1 
Surely  none  who  entertain  sound  scriptural  sentiments; 
and  with  any  other  class  of  persons  our  development  of 
the  law,  by  which  spiritual  knowledge  is  communicated, 
has  very  little  to  do.  We  can  find  in  this  development 
the  reason  why  Professor  Stuart,  R.  Watson,  and  other 
leading  Pedobaptists,  call  this  baptism  a  figurative  one. 
2.  The  New  Testament  clearly  teaches  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  have  been  one  of  promise  to  the  dis- 
ciples, and  not  a  law  of  obedience  for  them.  Baptism 
in  water,  as  a  duty,  was  well  understood  by  the  disciples, 
and  for  this  reason  you  never  find  them  confounding  it 
with  the  baptism  of  promise.  Nor  do  you  find  them 
making  the  baptism  of  promise  the  ground  for  an  argu- 
ment, to  teach  the  action  of  literal  baptism.  In  this  im- 
portant respect,  the  disciples  of  Christ  and  modern  Pedo- 
baptists materially  differ  in  their  conduct.  The  striking 
difference  manifested  in  the  conduct  of  these  parties, 
should  excite  our  suspicions  of  the  soundness  of  the 
argument,  which  finds  for  its  foundation  a  ground  un- 
known to  the  disciples.     The  reason  they  are  found  dif- 


MR.    PEDOBArTIST.  269 

fering  in  their  conduct  in  relation  to  baptism,  may  be 
found  in  the  object  sought  to  be  gained  by  it — the  dis- 
ciples saw  their  duty  in  a  plain  law — Pedobaptists  seek 
to  shroud  this  duty  in  a  mystery,  by  appealing  to  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  to  find  the  action  in  literal  baptism. 
In  this  may  be  found  the  reason  why  Pedobaptists 
chiefly  rely  for  a  foundation  for  their  practice  in  modern 
times  on  this  baptism,  because  of  the  mystery  of  Divine 
operations.  The  weakness  of  this  effort  may  be  seen  in 
its  antagonism  to  the  conduct  of  the  disciples.  This  is 
sufficient  for  its  rejection  by  us. 

3.  The  New  Testament  teaches  generally,  that  of  the 
manner  of  the  Spirit's  operations  we  have  no  knowledge. 
This  fact  is  fully  and  unanswerably  confirmed  by  all 
sound  theology  concerning  the  Spirit's  divinity.  Let  us 
quote  the  language  of  the  Saviour  as  found  in  the  third 
chapter  of  John,  in  way  of  confirmation  of  this  principle. 
"  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  can'st  not  tell  whence  it  cometh 
and  wither  it  goeth.  So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit."  The  Spirit  in  this  Scripture  adopts  the  manner 
of  the  resembling  object,  the  likeness  is  to  be  found  in  the 
certainty  of  the  effects  produced  by  the  Spirit  in  its  ope- 
ration, and  the  effects  produced  by  the  resembling  object. 
We  may  have  a  knowlege  of  the  manner  of  the  resemb- 
ling object  to  which  the  Spirit's  operations  are  com- 
pared ;  but  it  is  a  lamentable  mistake  to  suppose,  that 
this  knowledge  reveals  to  us  the  Spirit's  manner.  This, 
from  a  necessity,  founded  in  the  nature  of  the  Spirit, 
must  remain  a  profound  mystery  to  us ;  for  of  its  manner 


270  THE    TfilAL   Of 

'we  can  have  no  knowledge.    It  would  be  blasphemy  in 
Us  to  make  the  profession  of  this  knowledge. 

4.  The  certainty  of  the  Spirit's  operation  is  repre- 
sented to  us,  by  it  adopting  the  manner  of  a  number  of 
objects  to  which  its  operation  is  compared.  It  is  likened 
to  a  "  well  of  water  springing  up  into  everlasting  life,"  to 
''rivers  of  living  water"  flowing ;  to  "rivers  whose  streams 
make  glad  the  city  of  God,"  "  like  a  rushing  mighty 
wind,"  to  fire  j  to  annointing  of  oil ;  to  "  drinking  into 
one  spirit ;"  to  breathing ;  to  falling,  to  "  descending 
like  a  dove,"  to  "  pouring  out,"  and  to  an  immersion 
into  the  spirit.  All  these  things  are  used  to  elucidate 
the  certainty  of  the  effects  of  the  Spirit's  operation. 
Who  would  be  so  insane  as  to  say,  these  actions  and 
things  in  their  manner  are  all  scriptural  modes  of  bap- 
tism 1  This  no  Pedobaptist  would  dare  to  affirm,  because 
it  would  make  so  many  modes  of  baptism  for  him,  that 
would  make  him  blush  with  shame  at  the  result  of  his 
affirmation.  What  right  has  he  to  select  the  manner  of 
one  of  these  resembling  objects,  out  of  all  contained  in 
the  above  enumeration,  and  claim  for  it  the  right  to 
determine  the  action  of  literal  baptism  1  And  yet  he 
does  this  without  the  least  authority  for  his  conduct, 
and  against  the  remonstrance  of  all  the  rest  which  he 
passed  by.  The  principle  that  authorizes  the  selection 
of  "pouring,"  from  all  the  actions  to  which  the  Spirit's 
operation  is  compared,  will  give  them  all  a  joint  right  to 
the  title  of  scriptural  baptism,  because  the  principle  of 
action  is  only  the  choice  of  the  party.  This  joint  right 
principle  can  never  be  successfully  contested  by  Pedo- 


mr.  rEDoB-vrmr.  -27 1 

baptists,  because  it  rests  on  the  same  foundatiou  upon 
which  they  build  their  argument  for  pouring  in  baptism. 
In  repudiating  the  right  of  all  these  to  be  baptism,  you 
necessarily  destroy  pouring  as  the  action  of  baptism,  be- 
cause they  are  all  founded  on  the  principle  that  the  Spirit's 
operation  is  compared  to  them. 

5.  For  Pedobaptists  to  lay  hold  of  pouring,  as  one  of 
the  motions  of  water  to  which  the  Spirit's  operation  is 
compared  sometimes,  and  exclude  all  other  motions  of 
water,  to  which  it  is  likened,  and  to  do  this,  too,  with 
the  professed  object  of  making  pouring  the  action  of 
literal  baptism,  is  to  assume  a  position  unsupported  by 
the  Scriptures  and  sound  reason.  This  process  is  adopted 
for  their  argument,  apparently  because  more  deceptive 
and  plausible  than  a  fair  issue  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word  by  authoritative  evidence.  The  argument  adopted 
by  them  must  be  unsound  ;  for  the  evidence  in  testimony 
comes  in  conflict  with  its  conclusion,  and  it  authorizes 
too  many  modes  of  baptism,  as  we  have  already  shown. 

6.  The  argument  of  Pedobaptists,  founded  on  the  pour- 
ing out  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  foundation  of 
literal  pouring  in  baptism,  of  necessity  makes  God  ma- 
terial ;  because  they,  in  their  argument,  have  the  Holy 
Ghost  literally  poured  out.  A  conclusion  so  revolting 
in  its  character,  which  yet  is  the  result  of  their  argu- 
ment, must  show  the  desperate  position  of  their  cause. 
How  irreconcilable  is  their  argument  here  with  their 
views  of  the  Spirit's  divinity  !  One  or  the  other  must 
be  given  up.  When  Pedobaptists  deny  this  legitimate 
conclusion,  necessitated    by    their   promises,  they   will 


272  THE    TRIAL   OF 

make  void  their  argument;  because  pouring  literally,  m 
rclalion  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  Avill  be  given  up. 

Every  person  knows  that  the  only  thing  that  can  be 
poured  out  is  matter.  When  the  spirit  is  said  to  be 
poured  out,  from  the  nature  of  spirit  it  must  be  figura- 
tively. It  is  the  abuse  of  this  figurative  nse  of  "pour," 
in  relation  to  the  Spirit's  operation,  that  leads  to  the 
frightful  conclusion  of  the  materiality  of  God. 

When  Pedobaptists  deny  this  legitimate  conclusions, 
necessitated  by  their  premises,  they  will  make  void  their 
argument ;  because  pouring  literally,  in  relation  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  will  be  given  up. 

7.  Literal  baptism  is  made  the  resembling  object  to 
which  the  Spirit's  operation  is  compared,  and  therefore 
the  latter  is  called  baptism..  We  are  called  upon  by 
every  good  law  of  interpretation  to  determine  first  what 
literal  baptism  is  in  its  action,  from  which  this  figurative 
baptism  receives  its  origin  and  name.  This  has  been 
our  mode  of  proceedingrand  it  brings  with  it  the  unmis- 
takable result,  that  baptizo  signifies  only  to  immerse.  But 
Pedobaptists,  in  their  mode  of  proceeding,  seek  to  deter- 
mine the  action  in  spiritual  baptism  that  is  beyond  human 
apprehension,  and  then  their  conception  of  some  sup- 
posed action  belonging  to  it,  must  be  the  action  of  literal 
baptism  I  This  mode  of  proceeding  is  set  aside  by  them- 
selves, when  they  are  found  inquiring  after  other  forms 
of  spiritual  manifestation,  because  the  principle  applied 
to  this  baptism  is  notoriously  unsound — to  seek  the 
meaning  of  a  figure  before  we  ascertain  its  foundation. 
It  is  an  axiom,  that  no  figure  can  exist  without  a  litera 


Mil,    PE1J013APTIST.  273 

foundation.  Who  will  dare  to  deny  this  axiom  to  be 
self  evident  1  It  refutes  the  whole  course  of  Pedobap- 
tists,  adopted  for  the  solution  of  spiritual  baptism,  be- 
cause they  are  found  seeking  the  action  of  the  spiritual 
to  determine  the  literal. 

The  Spirit's  manifestation  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  will 
in  its  effects,  also  help  to  show  the  foundation  upon 
which  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  on  that  occasion  was  called 
a  baptism ;  the  room  was  "  filled  where  they  were 
sitting,"  and  they  were  also  "  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  disciples  in  the  chamber  were  surrounded 
on  all  sides  by  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  because  it  is 
said  the  room  and  themselves  also  were  filled.  Does  not 
the  language  import  fully  a  surrounding,  physically  and 
morally"?  We  answer  it  certainly  was  such  a  surround- 
ing. The  only  literal  baptism  corresponding  to  all  that 
is  said  of  the  spiritual  on  this  occasion,  is  immersion  ; 
for  only  in  immersion  is  there  a  literal  surrounding  on 
all  sides  of  its  subjects.  Let  us  see  whether  there  is  a 
resemblance  between  this  spiritual  baptism  and  one  of 
literal  pouring  or  sprinkling.  In  these  literal  baptisms 
there  is  not  even  a  partial  surrounding  or  covering,  and 
for  this  reason  they  offer  no  resemblance  to  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit.  Without  a  resemblance  in  the  literal  to 
the  figurative  baptism,  it  can  show  no  claim  to  its  foun- 
dation. On  the  ground  of  this  want  of  resemblance, 
you  are  bound  to  reject  pouring  in  literal  baptism. 

8.  The  baptism  of  the  spirit  finds  its  origin  literal 
immersion  as  baptism  ;  to  which,  according  to  the  law 
of  figurative  language,  there  must  be  a  resemblance.     It 


21'4  THE    TftUL   OF 

is  designed  to  represent  the  believer's  interest  in  Christ. 
To  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  in  the  language  of  figura* 
tive  speech,  is  no  more  impossible  than  it  is  to  be  "  in 
Christ,"  "  in  God,"  "  in  the  Spirit"  and  "  to  walk  in  the 
Spirit."  This  same  relation  is  represented  under  another 
form  of  speech,  when  the  bodies  of  believers  are  said  to 
be  "  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  again,  M  Christ  will 
dwell  in  them,"  &c  All  these  forms  are  used  in  way 
of  accommodation  to  our  capacities,  and  to  communicate 
to  us  spiritual  knowledge.  To  deny  that  the  Spirit's 
baptism  does  figuratively  denote  immersion,  will,  for  the 
same  reason,  require  the  denial  of  the  representations 
above  named  of  the  believer's  interest  in  Christ,  because 
all  these  relations  and  things  are  founded  on  the  common 
principle  which  we  have  sought  to  unfold. 

9.  In  the  Spirit's  baptism,  there  cannot  be  a  litera? 
pouring,  sprinkling,  or  an  immersion  as  its  action,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  for  the  reason  that  the  Spirit  is  not 
material,  or  subject  to  these  actions.  What  a  frightful 
result  would  follow  the  application  of  this  literal  princi- 
ple, to  the  development  of  the  Divine  character  I  Jeho- 
vah is  said  to  have  eyes,  hands,  feet,  and  to  come  down 
from  Heaven.  Now  the  application  of  it  to  these  things 
said  of  God,  would  make  him  have  a  body  like  unto  ours, 
and  must  lead  to  the  denial  of  His  Spirituality  and  Uni- 
versality. The  fact  that  it  would  establish  such  baseless 
absurdities,  and  God  dishonoring  representations,  com- 
pelled us  to  turn  from  it  with  utter  disgust,  and  leave 
those  who  use  it,  to  reconcile  it  with  these  things  if  they 
pan. 


MR.   I'EJDOBAPTIST,  21'5 

10.  The  argument  of  Pedobaptists,  applied  to  spiritual 
baptism,  confounds  things  that  are  different.  The  pour- 
ing out  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  no  where  in  the  Scriptures 
called  baptism.  They  take  the  very  point  in  dispute  to 
be  granted.  This  is  certainly  begging  the  question. 
Until  they  can  make  this  essential  point  in  their  argu- 
ment good,  it  must  remain  a  baseless  assumption.  This 
I  know  they  never  can  do,  because  the  proof  can  no 
where  be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  The  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  took  place  after  the 
pouring  out,  for  it  was  effected  after  the  disciples  were 
surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  This 
state  of  the  disciples  alone  is  called  a  baptism,  and  with- 
out it,  there  could  be  no  baptism  in  fact  or  in  figure. 

11.  The  words  "  poured  out,"  when  used  in  relation 
to  the  Spirit's  manifestations,  are  employed  figuratively, 
and  in  compliance  with  a  common  usage.  For  instance, 
it  is  said  God  pours  out  his  indignation,  wrath,  anger, 
blessing,  curses,  &c.  If  these  latter  uses  of  "poured 
out"  are  figurative,  because  they  relate  to  God's  conduct 
towards  men,  the  former  must  be  so  for  the  same  reason. 
Let  us  apply  the  argument  of  Pedobaptists  to  these  latter 
uses  of  "  poured  out."  Then  desolation,  affliction  and 
death,  will  be  the  meanings  of  "  poured  out,"  for  these 
were  the  things  promised  and  expressed.  The  argument 
is  as  sound  in  the  one  case,  as  it  is  in  the  other.  It 
proves  too  much,  and  therefore  is  worth  nothing. 

II.  Answer  to  the  argument  of  the  Counsel  in  relation 
to  this  baptism.  The  defendant's  Counsel  said :— 1. 
H  This  baptism  was  a  real  and  not  a  figurative  one."  He 


276  THE    TRIAL   OF 

signifies  in  this  language,  that  there  was  a  literal  action 
made  known  to  us  in  this  baptism.  This  we  have  al- 
ready shown  to  be  impossible,  because  the  Spirit  is  not 
a  material  substance,  and  of  its  manner  of  operation  we 
have  no  knowledge. 

2.  "  The  manner  of  this  baptism  was  by  pouring." — 
This  is  an  assumption  without  a  tittle  of  evidence  to  sup- 
port it,  and  contrary  to  the  evidence  before  us.  The  sum 
of  the  evidence  is  this:  (1)  To  pour  out  the  Spirit  liter- 
ally is  impossible,  or  all  theology,  teaching  the  Spirit's 
divinity,  is  a  fable.  (2)  The  word  used  to  denote  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  baptizo,  but  ekkeo, 
to  pour.  (3)  There  is  not  a  solitary  instance  in  the 
Scripture  where  baptizo  is  used  for  pouring  out. 

3.  "  We  have  in  this  baptism  Divine  authority  for 
pouring."  Such  authority  is  all  that  we  demand  of  him 
to  establish  his  practice.  Why  not  give  it,  if  it  is  at 
hand  1  It  would  settle  the  controversy  forever !  He 
fails  just  at  this  essential  point.  When  we  ask  for  evi- 
dence, he  gives  us  assumptions. 

4.  "  We  are  taught  plainly,  that  the  application  was 
of  the  Spirit  to  the  person,  and  not  the  person  to  the 
Spirit."  The  application  (as  he  calls  it)  of  the  Spirit, 
neither  here  nor  any  where  else  is  called  baptism.  This 
spiritual  baptism  is  the  result  of  what  he  calls  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Spirit — when  immersed  in  its  influence. 

His  whole  effort  here  is  a  complete  failure,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact,  that  his  proposition  contains  two 
different  words  from  the  one  that  expresses  the  baptism 


MR.    PEDOBAPTIST.  277 

of  the  Spirit.  His  contains  "poured  out"  and  is  so 
found  in  the  passage  in  Acts  2d.  In  the  other  propo- 
sition, it  is  "baptized  in"  and  not  poured  upon.  This 
representation  is  true  in  Greek  as  well  as  in  English. 
The  two  verbs,  and  the  two  prepositions  in  these  pro- 
positions, belong  to  two  different  families,  and  are  con- 
strued with  prepositions  of  the  kind  which  you  find 
here.  The  Counsel  confounds  these  verbs  and  preposi- 
tions in  his  argument,  without  the  authority  of  a  single 
example  to  justify  him.  To  call  such  a  mode  of  argu- 
mentation sound  or  logical,  is  to  make  void  the  end  of 
language  altogether.  For  if  two  distinct  and  opposing 
propositions  are  made  to  signify  the  same  thing,  when 
the  contingency  occurs  for  it  in  our  argument,  human 
speech  ceases  to  be  the  -vehicle  of  intelligent  communi- 
cation. 

111.  We  shall  now  call  a  number  of  Pedobaptist  wit- 
nesses, to  confirm  our  position,  and  refute  that  of  the 
Counsel. 

Neander  :  "  John's  followers  were  entirely  immersed 
in  water ;  the  Messiah  would  immerse  the  souls  of  be- 
lievers in  the  Holy  Ghost." — Life  of  Christ,  p.  50. 

Gurtlerus  :  "  Baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  immersion 
into  the  pure  waters  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  or  a  rich  and 
abundant  communication  of  his  gifts.  For  he  on  whom 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  poured  out,  is,  as  it  were,  immersed 
into  him." 

Bp.  .Reynolds :  "  The  Spirit  under  the  Gospel  is  com- 
pared to  water;  and  that  not  a  little  measure,  to  sprinkle, 
or  bedew,  but  to  baptize  the  faithful  in;  (Matt.  3:   11. 


278  THE    XSIAL    Of 

Acts  1 :  5,)  and  that  not  in  a  font,  or  vessel,  which  grows 
less  and  Jess,  but  in  a  spring  of  living  water." 

Le  Clerc r  "He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
As  I  plunge  you  in  water,  he  shall  plunge  you,  so  to 
speak,  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Casaubon :  "  To  baptize  is  to  immerse,  and  in  this 
sense  the  apostles  are  truly  said  to  be  baptized;  for  the 
house  in  which  this  was  done,  was  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  so  that  the  apostles  seemed  to  be  plunged  into 
it,  as  into  a  fish  pool." 

Grotius  :  "  To  be  baptized  here,  is  not  to  be  slightly- 
sprinkled,  but  to  have  the  Holy  Spirit  abundantly  poured 
upon  them." 

Mr.  Leigh:  "Baptized;  that  is,  drown  you  all  over, 
dip  you  into  the  ocean  of  his  grace;  opposite  to  the 
sprinkling  which  was  in  the  law." 

Abp.  Tillotson  :  "It  (the  sound  from  Heaven,  Acts  2:  2,) 
filled  all  the  house.  This  is  that  which  our  Saviour 
calls  baptizing  with  (in)  the  Holy  Ghost;  so  that  they, 
who  sat  in  the  house,  were,  as  it  were,  immersed  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  they  who  were  buried  with  water,  were 
overwhelmed  and  covered  all  over  with  water,  which  is 
the  proper  notion  of  baptism." 

Bp.  Hopkins :  "  Those  that  are  baptized  with  the 
Spirit,  are,  as  it  were,  plunged  into  that  heavenly  flame, 
whose  searching  energy  devours  all  their  dross,  tin,  and 
base  alloy." 

Mr.  H.  Dodwell :  "  The  words  of  our  Saviour  were 
made  good,  ye  shall  be  baptized  (plunged  or  covered) 


MR.    PBDO&APTIST.  27# 

with  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  John  baptized  with  (in)  water3 
without  it." 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century, 
speaks  in. the  following  manner :  "  As  he  who  is  plunged 
in  water  and  baptized*  is  encompassed  by  the  water  on 
every  side  j  so  are  they  that  are  wholly  baptized  by  the 
Spirit." 

How  can  the  Court  and  jury  give  any  countenance  to 
the  argument  of  the  Counsel,  on  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  when  it  is  brought  to  the  light  of  the  arguments 
which  we  have  presented,  and  weighed  by  the  testimony 
of  these  Pedobaptist  witnesses  1  These  two  considera- 
tions must  make  void  all  his  defence  on  this  point. 

The  Counsel  next  proceeded  to  answer  the  confirming 
argument  of  the  Prisoner's  Counsel,  for  pouring  being 
the  action  of  literal  baptism,  founded  on  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  first  passage  of  Scripture  he  referred  to,  may 
be  found  in  Ezekiel  36  :  25.  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  :  from  all  your 
filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you." 
What  has  this  Scripture  to  do  with  Christian  baptism  % 
He  says,  a  good  deal,  because  the  inspired  writers  did 
constantly  represent  sanctification  by  sprinkling  and 
pouring."  There  is  no  evidence  offered  by  him,  that 
these  actions  alone  are  so  used;  in  what  he  has  said  upon 
this  passage.  He  takes  it  to  be  granted,  that  sprinkling 
here  is  the  proper  action  for  Christian  baptism  ;  because 
the  word  sprinkle  happens  to  be  found  in  this  promise. 
His  duty  is  to  show  the  relation  of  this  promise  and  its 


280  THE    TRIAL   OF     ' 

action,  to  baptism  and  its  action.  This  he  does  not 
attempt  to  do. 

The  following  things  are  suggested  by  this  passage : 

(1)  The  persons  addressed — "  the  Jews  in  captivity." — 

(2)  The   promise  made  to  them — "I  will  cleanse,"  &c. 

(3)  The  means  to  be  employed — "  1  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you."  (4)  To  determine  the  process  here 
contemplated,  we  must  go  to  the  law  under  which  they 
lived.  We  learn  from  the  law,  the  following  things  were 
laid  down:  (1)  How  the  water  of  purification  should 
be  prepared.  JNumb.  19,  &c.  (2)  If  a  leper,  the  water 
was  to  be  sprinkled  upon  him.  (3)  The  oil  of  olive  was 
poured  upon  his  head.  (4)  The  whole  person  of  the 
leper  or  polluted  one  was  to  bathe  in  common  water. 
This  whole  process  was  required  to  secure  the  desired 
result — their  cleansing. 

Baptism  cannot  be  the  anti-type  of  all  these  things. 
It  can  be  of  the  bathing  in  common  water  after  the  pre- 
vious process  required  had  been  accomplished.  So  Paul 
seems  to  contemplate  it,  when  he  says :  "  Having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water."  Paul  makes  the  sprinklings 
of  the  law  typical  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  bath- 
ings under  the  law  typical  of  baptism,  whose  action  is 
to  cover  the  whole  body.  Surely  Paul's  exhibition  of 
this  subject,  is  more  reliable  than  the  Counsel's. 

The  Counsel's  argument  is  based  on  three  assumptions  : 
(1)  Baptism  for  sanctification.  (2)  The  act  of  its  ad- 
ministration is  by  sprinkling.  (3)  That  this  passage 
refers  to  gospel  days  and  to  its  baptism.     It  is  impossi- 


iffk.  r£jjOBAi"rrsx.  28>1 

blc  for  him  to  prove  these  three  things,  for  they  arc  no 
where  to  be  found  in  the  document.  Without  these 
things  being  in  evidence,  you  are  bound  to  reject  his  use 
of  this  passage. 

The  second  confirming  passage  he  referred  to  may  be 
found  in  Isa.  53:  15.  "So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions." He  assumes  that  this  passage  refers  to  baptism 
under  the  gospel  administration,  for  he  gives  no  evidence 
to  support  it.  If  it  were  true,  then  Christ  would  have 
selected  raino,  to  sprinkle,  as  expressive  of  the  action  of 
the  ordinance  which  he  commanded.  The  fulfilment  of 
this  prophecy  imperatively  demands  it.  The  fact  that 
Christ  selected  baptizo,  which  never  signifies  to  sprinkle, 
as  the  action  of  baptism,,  shows  that  Christ  understood 
this  prophecy  altogether  differently  from  the  Counsel. 
"We  are  bound  to  believe  Christ,  and  refuse  submission 
to  a  fancy  of  the  Counselproposed  to  us  as  a  fact. 

To  make  this  Scripture  of  any  available  importance  for 
the  Prisoner's  conduct,  two  things  must  be  proven : — 
1.  It  refers  to  baptism  as  commanded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 2.  That  baptizo  signifies  to  sprinkle.  Without 
these  two  things  in  the  proof  offered  by  him,  we  are 
bound  to  reject  his  use  of  this  passage. 

His  third  confirming  argument  for  pouring  being  the 
action  of  baptism,  may  be  found  (he  says)  in  this  fact, 
that  the  inspired  writers  did  constantly  represent  "  the 
washings  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  mode  of  which  was 
prescribed,  as  performed  by  sprinkling."  "  The  only 
exception  was  in  regard  to  vessels."  He  refers  to  the 
following  passages  of  Scripture  to  confirm  this  principle. 


282  THE    TRIAL   01' 

Levi.  14,  and  Num.  19  :  17,  20.  You  will  find  in  read- 
ing these  two  Scriptures,  that  the  washings  required  were 
not  performed  by  sprinkling,  but  by  the  bathing  of  the 
persons  in  water.  The  sprinklings  in  the  passages  are 
not  called  washings,  nor  are  they  substituted  for  the 
washings  required.  His  argument  proves  too  much  for 
him,  for  the  passages  demand  the  sprinklings  first,  and 
the  bathing  of  the  whole  persons  in  water  last. 

His  whole  superstructure  reared  to  suppoi't  pouring  as 
the  action  of  baptism,  is  founded  on  unsound  principles, 
viz:  to  determine  the  meaning  of  a  positive  institution, 
by  a  promise,  or  by  another  institution  under  another 
dispensation.  In  this  fact  you  will  find  the  cause  of  his 
a  complete  failure.  Why  did  he  appeal  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, to  prove  the  action  of  a  New  Testament  ordi- 
nance 1  It  was  not  because  the  same  word  was  used  to 
denote  the  action  in  both.  No  fact  of  this  kind  can  be 
found.  He  first  made  up  his  mind  what  the  action  ought 
to  be,  and  then  the  places  where  this  action  is  desig- 
nated appeared  to  him  to  afford  an  argument.  What  a 
wild  and  baseless  theory!  Sufficient  to  startle  insanity 
and  make  reason  blush  with  shame.  You  will  not  ask 
us  to  argue  against  an  absurdity  so  exceedingly  absurd. 
We  have  exposed  it.     No  more  can  be  demanded  of  us. 

The  last  argument  of  the  Prisoner'' s  Counsel  considered. 
We  will  now  take  notice  of  his  last  argument,  expressed 
in  the  following  language:  "You  find  that  no  Apostle 
or  Christian  minister,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  in- 
forms us,  ever  went  a  single  step  after  water  to  baptize." 
f{  this  was  true,  it  would  not  in  the  least  affeut  theques- 


MR.    PEDOBAfTlST.  "283 

tion  in  debate.  Are  we  not  plainly  taught  that  Christ 
came  from  "Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  baptized 
of  him  1"  If  it  was  necessary  for  Him  to  go  in  pursuit 
of  a  place  to  be  baptized  in  water,  the  same  must  be 
true  of  all  cases.  Did  not  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  con- 
tinue their  journey  until  they  came  unto  a  certain  water  1 
Why  stop  just  at  that  place  if  it  was  not  a  necessary 
object  1  They  are  found  going  into  it,  and  the  baptism 
follows.  The  same  fact  is  implied  in  the  conduct  of 
Paul,  Silas,  and  the  jailor.  A  place  of  water  is  sought 
for  two  purposes,  to  wash  the  stripes  of  Paul  and  Silas, 
and  to  baptize  the  jailor.  The  water  was  as  necessary 
for  the  one  purpose  as  it  was  for  the  other.  These  cases 
are  sufficient  to  meet  this  argument  and  make  it  void. 

This  argument  seems  to  be  based  on  this  false  prin- 
ciple, that  we  are  under  obligation  to  show  that  all  the 
essential  circumstances  of  an  ordinance  must  be  found 
connected  with  every  case  of  its  performance.  The  in- 
stitutions of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  repudiate  a 
principle  so  false.  All  history  and  the  current  languages 
of  the  day  brand  it  with  utter  unsoundness.  For  instance, 
when  it  is  said  they  were  circumcised,  or  eat  the  Lord's 
Supper,  have  we  a  right  to  deny  these  facts,  because  that 
in  their  connections  all  the  circumstances  essential  to 
these  acts  are  not  detailed  1  No  one  would  think  of 
doing  it.  In  history,  we  may  read  that  a  man  was  shot, 
stabbed,  or  drowned.  Who  doubts  that  all  essential  to 
these  things  existed1.  Otherwise  the  statement  could 
not  have  been  made.  For  this  reason,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, we  have  not  always  detailed  the  essential  circum- 


284  THE    TRIAL    OF 

stances  connected  with  the  baptism.  We  know  that  a 
baptism,  like  the  above,  could  not  take  place  without  its 
prerequisites.  We  have  examined  the  case  where  these 
circumstances  are  named.  Let  him  give  us  a  case  where 
they  did  not  exist. 

We  have  now  followed  the  Counsel  through  his  de- 
fence of  the  Prisoner's  conduct,  and  feel  that  we  have  a 
right  to  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  The  whole  defence  of  the  Prisoner  is  based  on  as- 
sumptions and  inferences,  which  cannot  be  admitted  as 
evidence  by  a  legal  tribunal. 

2.  For  want  of  evidence  to  sustain  these  assumptions 
and  inferences,  the  Counsel's  defence  must  fail. 

3.  The  pretence  set  up  for  the  Prisoner's  conduct, 
arising  from  the  differences  of  country  and  climate,  with 
the  ambiguity  of  baptizo  in  the  law,  are  practical  ac- 
knowledgments of  his  guilt  of  the  crime  charged  in  the 
indictment. 

4>.  The  argument  founded  on  the  number  who  practice 
after  the  Prisoner's  conduct,  and  contrary  to  the  consti- 
tutional law,  does  not  in  the  least  mitigate  the  crime 
charged,  or  justify  the  change  of  the  law  without  autho- 
rity. For  the  same  argument  would  establish  idolatry, 
and  a  host  of  other  evils  which  could  plead  numbers  in 
their  favor. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  before  we  recapitulate  the  law 
and  evidence  offered  by  us  to  sustain  the  charge  in  the  in- 
dictment, and  close  our  address,  we  will  invite  your  at- 
tention for  a  few  moments,  to  several  general  arguments, 
suggested  by  a  view  of  the  whole  evidence  before  us. 


MR.    PEDOEAPTIST,  'i50 

I.  The  Christian  Church,  both  real  and  nominal,  from 
its  origin  down  to  the  present  time,  cordially  endorses  the 
immersion  in*water  of  a  believer  in  the  name  of  the  Trini- 
ty, as  Christian  baptism.  This  general  admission  by  the 
church,  makes  immersion  the  only  undisputed  baptism  in 
evidence.  It  must  hold  this  position  until  another  bap- 
tism is  proven,  for  all  others  claiming  to  be  actions  of 
baptism,  are  denied  to  be  such.  To  make  sprinkling  and 
pouring  also  actions  of  baptism,  in  connection  with  im- 
mersion, they  must  be  proven.  Without  such  evidence, 
they  have  no  claim  upon  your  consideration. 

It  is  just  as  impossible  to  have  a  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling, and  one  by  immersion,  as  it  is  to  have  two  Lords — 
two  faiths— two  spirits — two  Saviours — two  hopes — two 
Heavens — two  hells ;  when  there  is  only  one  of  each  in 
evidence.  Until  those  disputed  are  proven,  there  can 
only  one  of  each  of  the  above  be  received.  This  is  self- 
evident.  To  deny  this  principle,  is  to  admit  all  the 
corruptions  of  Christian  doctrine  and  practice  to  be 
legitimate. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner  was  bound  in  his  defence, 
to  prove,  from  the  New  Testament,  that  sprinkling  and 
pouring  are  legitimate  actions  of  baptism.  Until  this  is 
done  you  are  bound  to  hold  the  Prisoner  guilty  of  prac- 
tising what  he  calls  a  baptism,  but  which  is  unknown  to 
the  New  Testament. 

Let  us  elucidate  the  principle  upon  which  this  argu- 
ment is  founded,  by  referring  to  the  disposition  of  an 
estate  by  law.  Mr.  Immerse  is  admitted  by  every  one  to 
be  a  legal  heir  to  the  estate,  or  to  baptism.     His  right  to 


380  TEE   TRIAL   OF 

the  estate  is  not  disputed  by  Messrs.  Pour,  Sprinkle,  &e. 
They  all  acknowledge  him  to  be  an  undoubted  heir.  At 
the  time  of  the  disposing  of  the  estate  by  the  Court,  as 
the  law  directs,  there  are  found  to  be  other  claimants. 
Messrs.  Pour,  Sprinkle,  &c,  claim  to  be  joint  heirs  with 
Mr.  Immerse.  The  Counsel  for  Mr.  Immerse  would  say 
to  the  Court,  my  client's  heirship  is  not  contested  by 
any  one,  and  those  claiming  joint  heirship  concede  his 
undoubted  right.  We  deny  that  these  gentlemen  are 
legitimate  children  of  his  father,  and  we  are  unwilling 
to  share  the  estate,  or  Christian  baptism,  with  them. — 
Let  them  now  prove  that  they  are  legitimate  children 
of  his  father.  Until  this  is  done,  their  claim  is  only 
founded  in  a  fiction  created  for  a  purpose.  To  show  the 
Court  that  it  is  impossible  for  these  gentlemen  to  make 
good  their  joint  heirship  to  the  estate,  or  to  baptism,  the 
father  of  Mr.  Immerse  in  his  will  says  there  is  but  "one 
baptism,"  or  immersion.  The  language  of  the  will 
makes  it  very  clear  and  undoubted,  that  he  contemplated 
in  the  language  of  the  will  but  one  heir,  and  not  many. 
How  can  they  all  be  heirs  of  the  estate,  when  there  is 
only  one  named  and  designated  in  the  will  1  The  Court 
under  the  circumstances  is  bound  to  put  these  disputed 
claimants  to  the  proof  of  their  heirship ;  for  the  only 
heir  known  to  the  Court  and  the  will,  up  to  this  time,  is 
Mr.  Immerse.  Now  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  prove 
their  joint  heirship  without  making  void  the  will ;  be- 
cause the  will  knows  only  one  heir,  and  not  many.  The 
Court,  under  these  circumstances,  would  order  the  estate 
to  be  given  to  Mr.  Immerse.     There  is  only  one  other 


MR.    ?ED0BA.PTI9T,  287 

possibility  that  seems  to  us  could  occur,  that  is,  for  the 
Court  to  order  all  the  claimants  to  prove  their  title  to 
joint  heirship,  and  until  their  professed  relation  to  Mr. 
Immerse  was  in  evidence,  the  Court  would  be  bound  to 
hold  Mr.  Immerse  as  the  only  heir  known  to  the  law. 

This  case  illustrates  the  state  of  the  parties  in  this 
controversy.  We  claim  at  the  hands  of  the  jury  the 
whole  estate,  or  Christian  baptism,  because  our  right  is 
not  disputed,  and  the  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner  has  en- 
tirely failed  to  prove  another  baptism.  There  is  but 
"  one  baptism"  known  to  the  Constitution.  This  correct 
view  of  the  controversy  between  the  parties,  places  the 
burden  upon  Pedobaptists,  to  prove  another  baptism  to 
be  scriptural  as  well  as  immersion.  Until  this  is  done 
by  them,  our  work-  in  this  debate  is  completed  by  the 
general  admission,  of  immersion  as  a  scriptural  baptism. 
All  we  do  more  than  this  is  a  work  of  supererogation ; 
because  our  position  to  the  opposing  party  makes  no  such 
demands  of  us.  When  they  offer  what  they  call  proof 
of  another  baptism,  we  are  then  only  bound  to  show  that 
the  evidence  offered  does  not  prove  another  baptism. 

II.  God  never  commanded  the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of 
common  or  unmixed  water  upon  any  person  for  a  religious 
purpose.  This  fact  is  fully  evident  from  the  testimony 
offered,  and  in  itself  must  make  entirely  void  all  the 
supposed  arguments  of  the  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner. 
Under  the  administration  of  the  law,  you  read  of  the 
water  of  purification.  This  was  not  unmixed  water,  but 
a  compound,  Num.  19.  This  Divine  ordinance  unfolds 
the  following  things  :     (1)  The  composition  of  the  water 


288  THE   TRIAL   OP 

of  purification,  as  found  in  the  17th  verse.  (2)  The  or> 
ject  of  its  application — 9  v.  Heb.  9  :  13.  (3)  Its  sub- 
jects— unclean  persons  and  things,  13-18.  (4)  Admin" 
sstrator — a  clean  person,  18  v.  (5)  The  mode  of  appli- 
cation— by  sprinkling,  13  v.  (6)  The  consequence  to 
an  undean  person  who  neglected  it — cut  of  from  Israel, 
13  v.  This  law  of  purification  from  uncleanness,  makes 
the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  unmixed  water  on  a  person 
for  a  religious  purpose,  under  the  law,  an  impossible 
thing.  This  accounts  for  the  Counsel's  death-like  silence 
in  relation  to  on  institution  demanded  by  our  argument. 
There  is  none  in  the  Scriptures.  1  know  we  are  met  with 
God's  promise  in  Ezekiel — "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you."  We  have  already  examined  the  application 
of  this  promise,  and  proved  that  it  had  no  relation  to  a 
Divine  law  requiring  the  sprinkling  of  unmixed  water ) 
for  there  is  no  such  law  to  be  found  among  the  Divine 
enactments.  We  have  also  ascertained  the  law  of  puri- 
fication, and  found  that  this  law  imperatively  required 
the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer  to  be  mixed  with  water.  With- 
out this  ingredient,  water  alone  was  of  no  avail.  Again : 
this  passage  contains  only  a  promise  and  not  a  law  of 
obedience ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  a  legitimate  offset 
to  the  sweeping  character  of  my  argument.  If  this  pas- 
sage be  taken  spiritually,  it  can  have  no  reference  di- 
rectly to  a  law  administered  by  men,  but  to  God's  favor 
promised.  He  then  would  be  the  only  administrator  of 
this  promise.  Let  this  passage  be  taken  as  you  please, 
still  it  does  not  in  the  least  invalidate  the  power  and 
force  of  my  argument, 


STTt.   PEDOBAPTTST.  28$ 

Tliis  single  argument  unrefuted,  takes  the  foundation 
from  the  superstructure  reared  in  support  of  sprink- 
ling and  pouring  by  Pedobaptists,  and  leaves  them  no 
support  from  the  Scriptures.  In  view  of  this  important 
fact,  they  should  cease  to  plead  Divine  authority  for  their 
practice,  for  they  find  only  the  influence  of  human. 
authority  for  its  support. 

But  suppose  they  could  find  that  God  did  command  the 
sprinkling  or  pouring  of  unmixed  water  upon  a  person, 
for  a  religious  purpose,  this  per  &e,  would  be  of  no  avail 
to  them,  unless  they  could  prove  it  to  be  the  action  com- 
manded in  Christian  baptism.  It  might  be  the  action 
and  thing  commanded  in  a  number  of  institutions,  and 
yet  not  in  baptism.  It  is  true,  this  argument  would  lose 
its  force,  if  these  things  were  in  evidence.  It  is  also 
true,  that  institutions  containing  these  things  would  not 
in  the  least  affect  the  arguments,  which  prove  immersion 
to  be  the  action  commanded  in  baptism,  because  baptism 
is  a  distinct  institution  from  all  others  commanded. 

111.  Consider  a  common  sense  argument,  founded  upon 
a  comparison  drawn  between  the  practice  of  Pedobaptists 
and  the  practice  of  the  New  Testament,  in  relation  to  bap- 
tism. The  following  striking  contrarieties  may  be  ob- 
served :  (1)  The  place  of  administration.  The  New 
Testament  practice  was  in  the  water  ;  Pedobaptist  prac- 
tice is  not  in  the  water.  (2)  The  New  Testament  teaches 
that  the  administrator  and  subjects  of  baptism,  went 
down  into  the  water,  in  order  to  the  baptism  of  the  sub- 
jects.    The  other  practice  teaches,  that  to  go  down  into 

the  water,  is  not  necessary  for  its  baptism.    (3)  The  one 
13 


290  THE    TRIAL    OF 

practice  teaches  that  the  baptism  take?  place  in  the 
water;  the  other  practice  teaches,  the  baptism  takes 
place  out  of  the  water.  (4)  The  one  teaches,  that  after 
the  baptism  was  performed,  they  came  up  out  of  the 
water ;  the  other,  that  there  is  nothing  of  this  character 
required  in  baptism.  In  all  these  essential  character- 
istics, found  in  these  two  baptisms,  you  cannot  but  ob- 
serve a  striking  dissimilarity.  The  cause  of  this  want 
of  uniformity  in  the  two  must  be  sought,  and  found  in 
the  diversity  of  their  origin.  The  one  has  a  Divine 
origin ;  the  other  a  human.  The  practical  question  is 
after  all,  do  Pedobaptists  appear  to  have  copied  after  the 
Divine  example  1  You  should  find  no  trouble  in  coming 
to  an  intelligent  judgment,  whether  these  baptisms  are 
the  same  in  their  character.  If  not,  you  are  bound  to 
receive  the  one,  and  reject  the  other.  There  is  no 
other  alternative  that  can  be  adopted  by  Christians,  and 
our  profession  dictates  the  only  choice  to  be  made. 

If  you  will  note  carefully  the  analogy  between  the 
practice  of  the  Baptists  and  that  of  the  New  Testament, 
you  will  find  a  striking  likeness  in  all  the  essential 
features  of  their  baptisms,  which  will  prove  their  identity 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  The  reason  of  this  identity 
is,  that  the  one  is  copied  from  the  other.  That  this  is 
well  founded,  may  be  easily  ascertained  by  comparing 
the  essential  features  of  the  two  baptisms.  We  have  no 
fears  of  the  result  of  such  comparison,  because  the 
features  of  each  are  moulded  by  the  same  law. 

IV.  We  found  an  argument  on  the  conflicting  positions 
occupied  by  learned  Pedobaptists,  in  defending  their  pruc- 


MR.  PEDOBAPTIST.  291 

tice.  President  Dwight  says,  baptizo  signifies  "cleans* 
ing."  President  Beecher  says,  it  signifies  "to  purify." 
Dr.  Miller  says,  it  signifies  "to  wash,  to  sprinkle,  to 
pour  on  water."  Dr.  Scott  says,  it  signifies  "  the  use  of 
water  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism."  Dr.  Owen  says, 
it  "signifies  to  wash."  Dr.  Bogue  says,  it  signifies 
"  water  applied  to  the  body  of  the  person  baptized." 
Kev.  Mr.  Hibbard  says,  it  means  "to  purify  and  to  con- 
secrate." Dr.  Peters  says,  it  signifies  "to  sprinkle,"  &c. 
These  and  other  definitions  are  given  to  baptizo,  as 
the  foundations  of  the  practice  of  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing in  baptism.  Is  it  possible  to  make  common  sense 
believe  that  baptizo  signifies  all  these  actions,  designated 
by  these  Doctors  of  Divinity  1  To-us  it  seems  to  be  im- 
possible. God's  will  could  never  be  ascertained  under 
the  operation  of  this  law  of  interpretation.  It  would 
convert  light  into  darkness.  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that  baptizo 
cannot  have  all  these  significations!  There  are  words 
in  the  Greek  language,  which  definitely  express  all  these 
actions,  said  to  be  signified  by  baptizo,  and  until  the  as- 
sumptions of  these  authors  are  supported  by  examples 
of  the  use  of  baptizo,  from  the  language,  they  have  no 
claims  upon  our  indulgence,  for  a  single  moment,  in 
this  debate.  If  you  will  consider  what  they  say  in  favor 
of  their  assumptions,  you  will  find  it  destitute  of  all 
reliable  authority  beyond  their  own  opinions. 

A  complete  refutation  of  these  assumptions  may  be 
found  in  this  fact,  that  each  one  of  these  authors  claims 
his  own  definition  of  baptizo  to  be  the  true  one.  If  you 
believe  any  one  of  them  to  be  correct  in  the  premises, 


THE    TRIAL    OF 

upon  which  he  rests  his  meaning  of  baptizo,  you  are, 
from  the  necessity  of  your  faith  in  his  judgment,  bound 
to  reject  all  the  opposing  meanings  offered  by  the  other 
authors.  All  these  authors  practically  show  in  their  con* 
duct,  one  towards  another,  that  all  have  failed  to  find  the 
true  meaning  of  baptizo,  except  themselves  ;  for  all  of 
them  claim  to  be  correct  in  their  supposed  ascertained 
meaning  of  the  word.  The  natural  question  is,  who 
among  them  has  the  true  meaning,  or  whether  they  have 
it  at  all  1  They  have  not  as  yet  settled  among  them- 
selves this  first  question,  nor  will  they  ever  be  able  to  do 
so,  unless  all,  except  one,  relinquish  their  opinions  to 
the  significations  of  baptizo.  Who  would  be  the  suc- 
cessful claimant,  remains  a  profound  uncertainty.  But 
until  they  become  reconciled  among  themselves,  they 
have  no  claim  to  public  favor. 

Is  it  not  a  well  settled  principle  in  law,  when  witnesses 
disagree  as  to  a  material  fact  in  controversy,  that  we  are 
bound  to  reject  all  their  testimony  concerning  this  ma- 
terial fact  1  Apply  this  principle  to  the  testimony  of 
these  interested  witnesses  concerning  the  meaning  of 
baptizo.  Are  we  not  by  its  just  mandate,  as  honest  men, 
bound  to  reject  all  they  say  upon  the  subject  !  This  will 
only  be  doing  to  them,  what  they  are  practically  doing 
one  to  the  other,  by  each  one  claiming  his  meaning  of 
baptizo  to  be  the  true  one. 

If  you  look  at  the  foundation  upon  which  all  Baptists 
build  their  argument  for  immersion,  you  will  find  they 
all  occupy  a  common  ground—the  use  of  baptizo  in  the 
language,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  This 


MR.  TED0BAPTI8T.  293 

mode  of  proceeding  is  the  only  legitimate  one  on  all 
questions  of  inquiry.     Here  we  all  stand  united. 

This  diversity  of  sentiment  shows  how  many  shifts 
are  adopted  to  justify  a  practice  unknown  to  the  consti- 
tutional law  and  early  practice  in  this  government.  The 
object  of  this  prosecution  is  to  restore  the  primitive 
practice  of  baptism  throughout  the  whole  Common- 
wealth. This,  we  are  satisfied  from  the  evidence,  you 
will  do  by  your  verdict. 

RECAPITULATION  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  PROSECUTION. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we  are  now  prepared  to  reca- 
pitulate our  argument  in  support  of  the  charge  in  the 
indictment,  after  which  we  will  close  our  address  for  the 
Commonwealth. 

I.  The  principles  of  law  and  evidence  applicable  to  this 
controversy.— We  unfolded  and  confirmed  them  by  wit- 
nesses not  challenged,  because  they  were  the  friends  of 
the  Prisoner.  They  have  remained  unimpeached  by  the 
Counsel,  from  the  time  of  my  opening  speech,  until  he 
closed  for  his  client.  These  principles  are  in  law,  for 
the  guidance  of  judicial  proceedings,  what  the  granite 
rock  is  to  the  earth — the  foundation  of  its  solidity  and 
endurance.  I  shall  look  to  the  Court  so  to  instruct  the 
jury.  We  ask  this  of  the  Court,  because  these  principles 
overspread  the  whole  case  with  light,  so  that  all  can  dis- 
cern clearly  their  duty,  as  well  as  the  best  way  to  execute 
it.  The  fair  fame  of  our  country  among  the  other  na- 
tions, demands  the  application  of  these  principles,  to 


294  THE    TRIAL   OF 

quiet  the  premonitions  of  coming  ruin  that  now  so  fear- 
fully threaten  our  national  existence. 

II.  The  proof  offered  to  show  that  baptizo,  in  the  law, 
signifies  to  immerse. — This  fact  is  essential  to  sustain  the 
charge  in  the  indictment.  We  are  sure  we  have  fully 
made  it  out  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  by  the  testimony 
of  the  following  witnesses : 

1.  Mr.  Classic.  In  his  testimony,  we  find  the  use  of 
baptizo  in  the  language  in  which  our  Constitution  was 
written.  This  testimony  becomes  invaluable  to  us  all, 
because  it  furnishes  the  occurrences  of  the  word  in  the 
language.  In  all  the  places  it  is  used,  it  is  found  to  de- 
note only  immersion.  What  more  evidence  do  we  want 
of  a  fact  than  this  array  of  examples  affords  1  A  more 
convincing  fact  cannot  be  found,  in  relation  to  any  word 
in  the  Greek,  or  any  other  language.  Another  convinc- 
ing fact  which  you  will  also  find  associated  with  this 
one,  is,  there  is  not  a  solitary  instance  in  all  these  ex- 
amples, where  baptizo,  even  by  implication,  signifies  to 
sprinkle,  or  to  pour.  This  speaks  volumes  against  the 
Prisoner,  and  affords  to  him  not  the  remotest  plea  for  his 
conduct. 

2.  Mr.  Josephus,  a  Jew,  who  lived  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  tells  us  the  same  story  about  baptizo.  In  his 
testimony  concerning  the  uniform  meaning  being  to  im- 
merse, the  Counsel  has  failed  to  find  an  instance  that 
could  be  tortured  to  speak  any  other  language. 

3.  Mr.  Lexicon  and  his  family,  who  were  all  Pedo- 
baptists,  are  compelled  to  give  to  baptizo  the  primary  or 
common  meaning,  to  immerse.     It  is  true,  that  some  of 


MR.  PED0BAPT13T.  295 

the  members  of  this  family  are  found  giving  the  effects 
of  immersion,  in  the  end  of  their  classification  of  the  use 
of  the  word.  We  might  expect  conduct  of  this  kind 
from  them,  because  they  were  interested  in  the  issue  of 
the  case,  as  its  determination  might  involve  their  fidelity 
to  the  country.  In  their  classification  of  the  following 
effects  of  immersion,  "  to  cleanse,"  "  to  purify,"  and  "  to 
wash,"  you  will  find  that  they  give  no  veritable  authori- 
ties from  the  language  to  support  their  classification. 
Without  authority  from  use,  the  classification  must  be 
fabulous,  it  is  a  consolatory  fact,  however,  that  they  all 
find  undoubted  authority  for  immerse,  as  its  meaning. 

A  fact  of  grave  consideration  here  must  not  be  for- 
gotten. A  number  of  these  lexicographers,  with  Beza, 
tell  us  the  reason  why  these  effects  are  found  in  some  of 
their  classifications  of  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  is,  because 
they  are  usually  produced  by  immersion,  therefore  they 
become  figurative  acceptations  of  the  word.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  this  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  not 
manufactured  for  the  occasion,  but  is  the  one  given  by 
some  of  these  Pedobaptist  lexicographers.  That  this 
solution  is  well  founded,  may  be  fully  ascertained  by 
consulting  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  language.  The  use 
of  baptizo  does  not  afford  a  single  clear  example  of  its 
signifying  "  to  cleanse,"  "  to  purify,"  or  "to  wash." 

It  must  be  obvious  to  all  who  will  reflect  a  few  mo- 
ments upon  this  subject,  that  when  we  immerse  for  puri- 
fication, cleansing,  or  washing,  these  three  things  cannot, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  proper  meanings  of  immerse. 
Yet  on  this  absurdity  is  built  the  argument  of  Pcdobap- 


TIFE   TRIAL   OF 

lists,  that  the  effects  of  an  action  are  proper  significations- 
of  the  word.  There  cannot  be  found  any  reliable  au- 
thority sustaining  a  principle  which  appears  so  exceed- 
ingly false  when  exposed  to  public  gaze.  It  is  the 
sophistry  thrown  around  it  by  its  friends,  that  deceives- 
many  honest  inquirers  after  the  truth. 

There  is  one  more  remarkable  fact  which  we  must 
notice  in  relation  to  the  lexicons.  It  is  this  i  In  all  their 
classifications  of  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  they  give  no- 
authority  for  sprinkling  or  pouring  as  meanings  of  bap- 
lizo. These  witnesses,  all  friends  of  the  Prisoner  r  give 
no  countenance  to  his  practice. 

4v  The  testimony  of  Pedobaptists  in  relation  to  the 
practice  of  the  Jews,  when  they  baptized  proselytes. — 
We  have  not  undertaken  to  ascertain  the  origin  of  this 
practice,  but  to  ascertain  the  thing  done  by  them  at  the 
baptism  of  proselytes.  The  entire  testimony  on  this 
point  is,  that  it  was  by  immersion  in  water.  I  have  not 
observed  a  single  exception  to  this  way  of  introducing 
proselytes  among  the  Jews. 

What  surer  way  could  be  adopted  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  word  in  the  law  of  baptism,  than  by  the- 
mode  we  have  adopted — by  consulting  the  Greeks  and 
the  Jews  ]  They  both  agree  in  their  testimony  that 
baplizo  signifies  to  immerse* 

5.  We  offered  a  class  of  Learned  Witnesses,  whose 
denominational  character  was  not  inquired  into.  Their 
testimony  is  clear  and  unquestionable.  From  this  w®  sup- 
port the  following  axiom:  if  baplizo  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage  signifies  to  immerse,  it  never  can  with  this  »iea»- 


MR.  PKDOCArTlST,  297 

ing  usurp  authority  over  raino,  and  ckeo,  the  acknow- 
ledged heads  of  the  families  of  sprinkle  and  pour,  by 
supplanting  them  entirely  by  the  substitution  of  bapto, 
nor  can  it  likewise  be  the  root  of  these  two  additional 
families.  But  we  are  compelled  to  adopt  this  absurdity, 
to  give  character  and  strength  to  the  argument  of  Pedo- 
baptists  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  Their  argument 
blots  out  the  individuality  of  the  families  of  sprinkle 
and  pour  in  the  language,  and  incorporates  them  into 
the  family  of  bapto.  The  families  of  sprinkle  and  pour 
deny  to  bapto  this  power  of  absorption,  and  also  deny 
the  existence  of  a  single  marriage  relation.  Because  of 
this  protest,  these  families,  all  represented  in  the  lan- 
guage by  a  numerous  posterity,  in  their  intercourse  with 
the  family  of  bapto,  pay  to  it  the  compliments  which  the 
Jews  paid  to  the  Samaritans. 

6.  We  offered  a  large  number  of  Pedobaptist  witnesses 
to  prove  the  constitutional  meaning  of  baptizo.  They 
all  agreed  that  it  signifies  to  immerse.  These  witnesses 
were  men  of  understanding,  learning  and  authority  in 
their  several  communions.  We  classified  them  in  the 
following  order :  1.  German  witnesses.  2.  Presbyte- 
rian. 3.  Episcopalian.  4.  Roman  Catholic.  5.  Ar- 
menian Professors.  The  weight  of  their  testimony  in 
favor  of  the  position  of  Mr.  Baptist,  ought  to  be  esti- 
mated by  their  friendship  for  the  Prisoner,  and  the  power 
of  truth  which  compelled  them  to  testify  against  their 
interest  and  in  condemnation  of  their  own  practice. 

7.  The  testimony  of  the  Friends  or  Quakers,  which 
was  only  a  confirmation  of  those  witnesses  previously 


£8S  HIE   TRIAS   OF 

examined.  Their  religious  sentiments  place  their  testiv 
mony  above  suspicion,  beeause  their  views  of  baptism 
will  not  be  affected  by  your  decision. 

8.  We  offered  a  class  of  unexceptional  witnesses,  em- 
bracing English  Lexicographers,  &c.  They  all  fully 
make  out  the  charge  in  the  indictment  against  the  Pri- 
soner, and  prove  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church  to 
have  been  immersion. 

All  these  several  classes  of  witnesses  in  their  testimony 
placed  it  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  meaning 
of  baplizo  in  the  Constitution,  is  to  immerse.  Can  wc 
find  a  stronger  array  of  testimony  deposing  to  the  same 
fact,  and  yet  that  the  fact  shall  be  doubted  %  We  answer 
no,  never.  To  doubt  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  light 
of  this  united  testimony,-  is  to  impeach  the  learning 
and  varacity  of  these  witnesses,  nearly  all  of  whom 
are  the  personal  friends  of  the  Prisoner.  You  will  be 
unable  to  find  a  parallel  in  the  annals  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings to  justify  such  conduct,  and  by  your  verdict 
will  justify  a  practice  unknown  to  the  Constitution  and 
contrary  to  all  the  facts  in  testimony.  In  truth,  it  would 
be  one  of  the  most  fearful  outrages  ever  attempted  by  a 

jury- 
Ill.  The  scriptural  use  of  baptizo,  and  the  circum- 
stances connected  with  its  action  in  the  ordinance.  It  was 
under  the  terms  of  this  argument  we  replied  to  Profes- 
sor Schmucker,  as  read  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Prisoner. 
We  so  dissected  his  arguments,  and  showed  their  entire 
imbecility  and  insufficiency  to  help  the  cause  of  the 
defendant,  that  when  the  sophistry,  by  which  they  were 


MR.  *Ei>OftiPTIST.  299 

supported  was  exposed,  they  only  gave  additional  strength 
to  our  chief  argument. 

IV.  That  the  Apostolic  baptism  was  a  burial  in  water 
for  an  object.  This  fact  was  sustained  by  the  testimony 
of  the  illustrious  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  and  confirmed 
by  the  Christian  Fathers  and  Reformers.  This  design 
of  Christian  baptism,  makes  immersion  as  its  action^ 
essential  to  its  existence. 

V.  The  History  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches, 
affords  an  unanswerable  argument  in  favor  of  baptizo  in 
the  Constitution,  signifying  to  immerse.  Their  practice 
fully  meets  her  claims,  as  you  will  observe  in  the  testi- 
mony on  this  point,  and  affords  no  countenance  for  the 
conduct  of  the  Prisoner.  Their  history  comes  from  the 
pens  of  Pedobaptist  writers. 

VI.  That  Mr.  Pedodaptist  did  abandon  Christian  im* 
mersion  as  commanded,  and  substituted  sprinkling  and 
pouring  in  its  place.  We  have  fully  developed  this  argu- 
ment, which  in  itself  is  sufficient  to  condemn  the  Pri* 
soner.  We  hope  the  Court  and  jury  will  give  it  that 
attention  which  its  importance  imperatively  demands. 
It  brings  this  whole  contest  to  a  single  point,  and  trium- 
phantly determines  it. 

VII.  Our  four  arguments  founded  on  the  general  aspect 
of  the  whole  testimony  in  evidence. 

1.  The  general  consent  of  the  real  and  nominal  church, 
that  immersion  is  Christian  baptism. 

2.  That  God  never  commanded  the  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling of  unmixed  water  upon  a  person,  for  a  religious 
purpose. 


300  THE  T1UAL  oi 

3.  An  argument  founded  upon  a  comparison  of  the 
baptisms  of  the  New  Testament,  with  those  of  Pedo* 
baptists  in  their  essential  characteristics. 

4.  From  the  conflicting  claims  of  Pedobaptists  in  their 
endeavors  to  settle  the  meaning  of  baptizo. 

How  strong  are  all  the  arguments  we  have  offered  in 
proof  of  a  single  fact,  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the 
law  !  We  are  sure  their  power  must  be  felt  by  the  Court, 
jury  and  country. 

CONCLUSION    OF    THE    SPEECH    OF  THE  PROSECUTING    COUNSEL. 

The  hour  has  arrived  for  congratulation  in  this  case. 
Toward  this  hopeful  period,  we  have  looked  with  a  long- 
ing eye  of  expectation.  It  has  come  to  us  all  at  last, 
with  the  pleasing  and  encouraging  reflection,  that  we 
have  all,  up  to  this  time,  performed  our  duty.  The  close 
of  the  whole  controversy  is  upon  us — a  few  more  duties, 
by  others  interested,  will  soon  be  performed,  and  the 
work  will  then  be  completed  for  our  country  and  our 
cause.  To  a  kind  Providence  we  owe  our  heartfelt  grati- 
tude for  its  protection  and  preservation.  My  work  is 
done.  To  you,  gentlemen,  is  left  the  judgment  of  this 
case.  The  fate  of  our  nationality  is  bound  up  in  your 
verdict.  Our  people  are  waiting  with  palpitating  inter- 
est for  your  decision.  You  dare  not  falter  in  this  trying 
emergency.  The  hour  for  your  action  has  come.  Let 
it  be  firm  and  decisive.  Your  country  and  consciences 
will  commend  you.  I  submit  the  case  into  the  hands 
of  the  Court  and  jury. 


MR.  riuoMrfffT.  301 

After  the  Counsel  had  closed  his  address,  the  Court 
ordered  silence,  and  proceeded  to  deliver  the  following 

CHARGE    TO   THE    JURY. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  can  congratulate  you,  that 
we  have  arrived  at  a  point  in  this  case,  when  your  labors, 
with  ours,  will  soon  be  terminated.  It  is  seldom  a  jury 
is  called  upon  to  give  so  much  of  their  time  as  you  have 
done  for  the  public  good.  The  present  case  imperative- 
ly demanded  this  inconvenience  of  you,  and  your  pat* 
riotism  has  led  you  to  respond  with  a  cheerful  cordiality, 
which  will  not  soon  be  forgotten  by  your  countrymen. 
The  personal  sacrifices  you  have  made  in  obedience  to 
our  call,  are  fully  appreciated  by  the  Court.  There  is 
another  consideration  which  we  all  appreciate,  the  parties 
in  this  controversy  have  expressed  their  confidence  in 
your  intelligence  and  impartiality.  It  now  becomes  our 
duty  to  lay  down  the  law,  and  it  is  yours  to  apply  it  to 
the  evidence  before  you.  After  this  application  you  will 
give  your  judgment  to  the  Court  and  country. 

I.  The  importance  of  this  trial  must  be  estimated  by 
its  relation  to  the  Commonwealth,  and  the  parties  per- 
sonally engaged  in  the  controversy.  It  is  a  question  of 
no  small  moment  to  the  country,  to  know  in  these  times 
of  violent  agitation,  what  was  commanded  to  be  done  by 
the  Lawgiver,  when  he  instituted  Christian  baptism.  Its 
original  meaning  was  intended  to  be  immutable.  If  the 
perversion  of  one  of  His  institutions  is  tolerated  and 
sanctioned,  the  same  reason  that  suspended  it  will  apply 
with  equal  force  to  all  others  that  are  found  in  the  or* 


302  IKK    TJlfAL   OF 

ganic  instrument  of  our  government.  The  adoption  of 
a  principle  of  this  fearful  character,  by  the  Court  and 
country,  would  work  the  abrogation  of  all  the  landmarks 
which  our  Fathers  appointed.  1  know  the  jury  and  coun* 
try  are  not  prepared  for  a  calamity  of  such  a  heart- 
sickening  character.  We  all  deprecate  it  with  indigna- 
tion. This  consideration  gives  an  importance  to  the  issue 
of  this  trial  which  is  incalculable. 

The  conviction  of  this  important  fact  rests  heavily 
upon  the  public  heart,  whose  agitated  and  irregular  throb- 
bihgs  are  felt  throughout  the  entire  body  politic.  It  ac 
counts  for  the  great  multitude  of  people  that  has  assem- 
bled from  all  parts  of  the  land  to  witness  this  trial.  They 
act  as  if  they  felt  a  nation's  weal  or  woe  was  involved  in 
its  determination. 

There  is  another  consideration  that  increases  the  im- 
portance of  this  trial  in  the  public  judgment — the  charac- 
ter of  the  parties  directly  concerned  in  this  controversy. 
Your  judgment  will  determine  whether  the  allegation 
of  Mr.  Baptist  is  truthfully  made  or  not,  or  whether  Mr. 
Pedobaptist  has  been  loyal  to  the  government  or  not. 
Your  judgment,  from  necessity,  will  forever  brand  with 
infamy  the  conduct  of  one  of  the  parties,  in  the  eyes  of 
the  public. 

These  momentous  considerations  should  awaken  in 
all  our  minds  the  nature  and  extent  of  our  responsibility 
to  all  the  parties  interested  in  the  judgment  of  this  case. 
Let  us  enter  upon  a  review  of  the  law  and  evidence,  ap- 
plicable to  the  issue  joined  by  the  parties,  with  an  honest 


MR.-   rED'OBAfTl'sf.  303 

impartiality  j  and  with  a  determination  to  administer  jus- 
tice to  all  concerned. 

II.  The  principles  of  law  and  evidence  applicable  to 
this  case  will  now  claim  our  attention.  It  is  a  console 
tary  fact  found  in  the  discussion  of  this  case  by  the 
Counsel  on  both  sides,  that  they  agree  in  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  applicable  to  the  evidence  offered. 
They  are  found  differing  about  the  application  of  some 
of  the  principles,  and  about  the  character  of  baptizo, 
whether  it  is  generic  or  specific.  You  will  look  to  the 
Court  for  its  understanding  of  these  principles,  and  how 
they  are  to  be  applied  to  the  evidence. 

1.  Baptism  is  a  Positive  Institution  of  the  New  Testa,' 
ment.  The  distinction  made  by  the  Counsel  between 
positive  and  moral  institutions  is  well  taken  and  sustained 
by  our  best  authorities. 

2.  The  words  in  this  institution  must  be  taken  in  their 
literal  or  popular  acceptation,  unless  the  Lawgiver,  in  the 
law,  or  somewhere  else,  signified  a  different  meaning. 
This  principle  has  been  cordially  accepted  by  the  Coun- 
sel. 

3.  It  is  clearly  and  fully  settled  by  Stuart  and  Carson, 
that  the  word  employed  to  designate  the  act  in  Christian 
baptism,  is  baptizo,  always,  and  not  bapto  in  a  solitary 
instance.  This  fact  will  save  us  a  great  deal  of  trouble 
in  summing  up  the  case.  The  only  legitimate  inquiry 
will  be  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  law. 
On  this  single  point  the  whole  controversy  turns  for,  or 
against  the  parties. 

<!'.  The  meaning  of  baptizo  at  the  time  it  was  incorpo* 


304  the  trial  ot 

rated  in  the  law,  must  be  the  only  meaning  received  by  its* 
The  application  of  this  principle  will  be  better  under- 
stood, when  we  call  your  attention  to  the  duty  of  the 
parties  in  the  controversy,  and  the  weight  due  to  the 
testimony  offered.  Until  this  branch  of  the  case  comes 
before  us  in  its  order,  we  will  suspend  its  application, 
because  it  relates  to  the  heart  of  the  whole  subject  be- 
fore us,  for  a  judicial  determination. 

5.  Baptizo,  if  a  specific  word  denoting  an  action,  can- 
not, by  any  law  of  interpretation,  be  made  to  signify  three 
distinct  actions.  For  the  words  that  claim  to  be  the 
actions  of  baptism  are  all  specific  words.  Dip,  sprinkle, 
and  pour,  are  of  this  character  from  necessity.  If  bap- 
tizo signifies  any  one  of  these  actions,  it  cannot  signify 
the  other  two.  This  is  true  in  Greek  as  well  as  in  Eng- 
lish. These  words  constitute  the  roots  of  three  distinct 
and  separate  families,  and  the  one  can  never  be  truth- 
fully substituted  for  the  other.  1.  If  baptizo  is  a  generic 
word,  designating  the  effect  of  a  specific  action,  or  actions, 
it  can  never  be  said  to  properly  signify  the  actions  by 
which  it  may  be  effected — it  per  se  only  denotes  the 
thing  to  be  done — the  manner  of  doing  it  is  designated 
by  other  words  suited  to  the  manner.  The  evidence  in 
testimony  must  determine  whether  baptizo  is  a  specific 
or  a  generic  word. 

6.  The  contemporaneous  history  of  the  action  of  the  or- 
dinance, will  help  us  to  determine  the  thing  done — desig- 
nated by  baptizo  in  the  law.  This  is  always  a  subject 
of  legitimate  inquiry,  to  ascertain  how  an  institution 
was  understood  at,  and  about  the  time  of  its  adoption, 


mi.  1'EDOSAPTiST .  305 

and  the  practice  that  followed.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact 
that  the  primitive  church  had  more  opportunities  for 
knowledge  of  this  litigated  point,  than  we  have.  Their 
testimony  is  an  important  auxiliary  to  us  in  estimating 
this  case. 

7.  It  is  a  fact  that  this  subject  was  so  well  understood 
by  the  first  ministers  and  their  hearers,  that  no  definition 
of  the  action  of  Christian  baptism  was  called  for,  nor 
was  there  one  given.  This  fact  apprizes  us  of  an  under- 
standing existing  in  those  early  times  concerning  this 
much  mooted  subject ;  and  we  should  carefully  see, 
whether  the  testimony  points  it  out  to  us,  and  if  it  does,, 
to  let  our  action  in  this  case  so  declare. 

8.  The  design  of  the  institution  ought  to  reflect  back  to 
the  thing  done  in  it.  The  only  thing  here  debated  was, 
what  baptism  in  its  design  contemplated.  This  con- 
tested point  you  can  settle  only  by  consulting  the  light 
the  New  Testament,  and  the  subsequent  history  of  its 
administration,  will  throw  upon  this  subject.  You  must 
look  at  the  arguments  and  evidence  on  this  point,  and 
make  the  inquiry,  what  was  the  design  of  baptism  ia 
the  light  of  this  evidence!  and  what  action,  if  any,  was 
necessary  for  this  design  1 

9.  The  weight  of  evidence  must  be  determined  by  the 
character,  learning,  and  interest  of  the  witnesses  in  the  is." 
sue  joined  by  the  parties.  It  is  well  settled  by  the  laws 
of  evidence,  that  a  party  testifying  who  is  interested  in 
the  issue,  is  not  equal  to  one  who  has  no  interest  at  stake,, 
m  one  who  testifies  against  his  interest.  The  reason  of 
this  well  recognized  distinction  in  estimating  the  teitj- 


306  THE    TRIAL   OF 

mony  of  three  witnesses  of  the  character  we  have  named 
is  obvious — the  one  is  liable  to  he  blinded  by  his  interest 
involved  in  the  issue,  the  other  two  of  necessity  are  im- 
partial in  their  statements,  because  there  are  no  induce- 
ments to  lead  them  to  color  them.  Agaiu,  when  an 
opposite  party  of  equal  learning  and  authority,  testifies 
to  the  truthfulness  of  the  opposing  party's  position,  his 
testimony  is  invaluable  to  the  party,  and  is  of  tenfold 
more  weight  than  the  testimony  of  an  interested  witness 
in  the  judgment  of  a  jury  ;  because  truth  compels  him 
to  testify  at  the  sacrifice  of  interest.  You  must  apply 
this  principle  in  estimating  the  weight  due  to  the  wit- 
nesses' testimony. 

10.  Witnesses  can  only  testify  to  facts  in  a  legal  inves- 
tigation, and  facts  only  can  be  received  by  you  as  a  legal 
evidence.  The  opinions  of  witnesses  are  to  have  no  influ- 
ence over  your  judgment  of  this  case.  For  you  are  called 
upon  to  determine  a  question  of  fact,  and  not  of  opinion. 
This  is  certainly  a  plain  law  of  evidence,  and  it  cannot 
be  departed  from,  without  endangering  the  whole  sci- 
ence of  jurisprudence.  It  will  therefore  be  your  duty  to 
make  up  your  minds  in  this  case  by  the  facts  in  the  tes- 
timony. 

11.  Consistency,  in  testimony,  is  essential  to  its  weight 
and  influence  over  the  judgment  of  a  jury.  This  prin- 
ciple bears  upon  its  face  its  importance  and  necessity. 
By  its  mandate  we  are  compelled  to  reject  all  that  is 
conflicting.  This  is  a  reasonable  law  of  evidence,  and  has 
always  been  approved  of  by  this  Court. 

You  have  often  observed  a  blind  inconsistency  devel- 


MR.   PEDOBAPTIST.  307 

oped  by  a  class  of  witnesses  in  their  testimony  for  a 
party.  This  inconsistency  always  excites  a  suspicion 
of  the  truthfulness  of  their  testimony.  But  when  you 
find  a  large  number  of  witnesses  agreeing  in  their  testi- 
mony, it  gives  a  moral  certainty  to  the  fact,  or  facts  tes- 
tified to.  The  application  of  this  principle  to  the  testi- 
mony offered  by  the  parties,  will  help  you  to  determine 
on  which  side  of  this  controversy  the  truth  is  to  be 
found. 

It  becomes  the  duty  of  the  jury  to  apply  these  prin- 
ciples of  law  and  evidence,  to  the  arguments  and  testi- 
mony offered  to  you  by  the  parties.  You  are  not  to  con- 
sult the  consequence  that  follows  their  application.  Your 
judgment  of  the  result  of  the  application  is  alone  de- 
manded by  your  oaths,  and  the  Constitution  under  which 
you  are  acting. 

111.  Consider  the  duty  of  the  parties  in  controversy 
according  to  the  forms  of  law. 

1.  They  require  of  Mr.  Baptist  to  prove  clearly,  that 
baptizo  in  the  law  signifies  to  immerse.  You  have  before 
you  all  the  testimony  on  which  he  relies  for  the  proof  of 
this  proposition.  You  are  to  judge  whether  it  sustains 
the  charge  in  the  indictment  or  not. 

2.  The  duty  of  Mr.  Pedobaptist  is  to  show  that  the 
proof  does  not  sustain  the  allegation  of  Mr.  Baptist. 
This  plea  alone  is  sufficient  until  some  veritable  evidence 
is  offered.     Until  then  he  has  no  other  duty  to  perform. 

3.  There  is  a  striking  conflict  between  the  parties,  as 
to  the  meaning  of  baptizo.  Both  cannot  be  correct.  You 


308  THE    TRIAL   OF 

are  to  determine  on  which  side  the  testimony  is  to  be 
found. 

IV.  Observe  how  this  whole  case  can  be  brought  to  a 
conclusion. 

1.  By  keeping  constantly  before  you  that  the  question 
is  one  of  fact  and  not  opinion. 

2.  The  fact  can  only  be  ascertained  by  reliable  testi- 
mony. 

3.  You  are,  under  the  law,  judges  of  the  weight  to  be 
given  to  testimony.  To  let  no  fear  of  consequences  de- 
ter you  from  an  impartial  examination  and  a  disinterested 
judgment. 

This  mode  of  proceeding  on  your  part,  will  enable 
you  to  come  to  an  intelligent  conclusion. 

Before  I  close,  it  may  be  justifiable  in  me  to  notice  the 
outside  influence,  that  has  been  made  to  bear  upon  the 
judgment  of  this  case.  You  witness  here  an  excited 
multitude,  giving  the  weight  of  their  influence  for  or 
against  the  Prisoner.  And  further,  from  all  parts  of  the 
land  come  here  inflammatory  addresses  at  this  time,  from 
the  friends  of  the  parties.  Their  power  may  appear 
potent  and  appalling,  and  their  influence  may  deter  you 
from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict,  because  of  the  con- 
sequences that  would  follow,  as  you  may  be  led  to  sup- 
pose, to  the  country. 

You  must  not  forget  that  a  true  verdict  is  the  only 
safe-guard  of  our  Constitution  in  perilous  times.  There 
are  loyal  men  of  sufficient  number  in  this  Commonwealth 
to  maintain  the  honest  decision  of  any  constitutional 
question.     They  would  look  with  scorn  and  contempt 


MS.  PEDOBAPTIST.  309 

upon  a  jury  that  would  sacrifice  justice  in  the  hour  of 
danger.  They  hold  that  the  purity  of  our  institutions 
must  be  maintained  at  any  price.  Unless  the  jury,  the 
palladium  of  our  safety,  maintains  in  its  verdicts  our 
laws  unmutilated,  the  country  will  hasten  to  ruin. 

When  this  crisis  in  our  country's  history  is  past,  your 
position  in  this  trying  hour  will  be  fully  appreciated, 
and  coming  generations  will  commend  your  sterling  in- 
tegrity. The  founder  of  this  government,  and  its  first 
administrators,  look  down  upon  this  scene  of  strife  with 
anxious  eyes.  To  you  is  entrusted  this  God-like  work 
of  removing  the  apple  of  discord  from  among  the  people. 
Disappoint  not  the  confidence  reposed  in  you.  The 
hope  of  the  nation  is  committed  to  your  hands.  Illus- 
trate in  your  judgment  the  virtues  of  our  ancestors,  who 
periled  their  all  for  the  existence  of  this  government. 
It  is  a  source  of  pleasure  to  me  to  say  that  I  believe  you 
are  prepared  for  the  emergency.  Your  action,  I  know, 
will  not  disappoint  my  hope. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  have  performed  my  duty  to 
you  and  the  country  ;  all  that  yet  remains  is  to  afford 
you  an  opportunity  fully  to  discharge  yours.  This  will 
now  be  given  you. 

A  constable  was  sworn,  and  he  conducted  the  jury  to 
their  room  to  deliberate  upon  a  verdict,  after  which  the 
Court  adjourned. 


INDEX. 


Address,  prosecuting  counsel's  opening,  10;  closing,  170.    Defendant's 

oounsel's  opening,  102 ;  closing,  134. 
Amharic  version,  translation  of  baptizo  in,  43. 
Arabic  "  "  "      45. 

Armenian     "  "  "      43. 

"        professors'  version,  translation  of  baptizo  in,  72. 

Baptism,  as  practised  in  the  Eastern  church,  85.  In  the  General 
church,  86.  Change  of,  from  immersion,  90 — 162,  256.  Change  was 
opposed,  100.  Christian,  is  expressed  only  by  baptizo,  14.  Design  of, 
128,  155.  Its  resemblance  to  Durial,  245.  Is  a  Positive  Institution, 
15.  Of  the  Holy  Spirit,  164,  267.  Proselyte,  52,  201.  Professor 
Schmucker  on  N.  Testament,  147,  211.  The  N.  Testament,  was  by 
immersion,  123,  216. 

Baptizo  alone  used  to  express  Christian  baptism,  14.  How  translated 
in  Oriental  versions,  38,  113,  195.  Its  classical  use,  25,  187,  294.  Its 
Jewish  use,  32,  188,  294.  Meaning  given  by  Lexicons,  34,  112,  190, 
294.  Not  translated  by  sprinkle  or  pour  for  1800  years,  36,  50.  Its 
figurative  use,  187,  236.  Testimony  of  independent  witnesses  con- 
cerning, 53.  Testimony  of  various  witnesses,  56 — 79.  Its  translation 
in  Western  versions,  46 — 49. 

Burial,  resemblance  of  baptism  to,  245. 

Calvin's  use  of  baptizo,  61.    His  view  of  the  design  of  baptism,  131. 

Catholic,  Roman,  use  of  baptizo,  71. 

Chalmers's  view  of  design  of  baptism,  133. 

Change  from  immersion,  90,  256. 

Charge  to  the  jury,  301. 

Church  History,  use  of  baptizo  in,  79,  159,  248. 

Church's  practice  of  baptism,  85 — 90. 

Classical  use  of  baptizo,  25,  139,  181. 

Clinic  baptism,  origin,  &c,  95 — 102. 

Coptic  version's  translation  of  baptizo,  45. 

Cornelius,  baptism  of,  233. 

Episcopal  testimony  concerning  baptizo,  67. 
Encyclopedia's  use  of  baptizo,  74. 


3 1 2  INDEX, 

English  version's  translation  of  baptizo,  49. 
Ethiopic      "  "  "  42. 

Figurative  use  of  baptizo,  187,  236. 

"  "      words  not  taken  in  Positive  Institutions,  22. 

Georgian's  version  translation  of  baptizo,  44. 
German  testimony  concerning  "       66. 

Holy  Spirit,  baptism  of,  164,  267. 

Immersion,  change  from,  90  ;  N.  Testament  baptisms  were  by,  123. 
Independent  testimony  concerning  baptizo,  53. 

Jailor,  baptism  of  the,  234. 
Jewish  use  of  baptizo,  32,  140,  188, 
Josephus'a    "        "        32,  140,  188. 

Legislation  contemplates  a  specific  object,  22. 

Lexicon's  definitions  of  baptizo,  34 ;  examination  of  definitions,  141, 190. 

Luther's  view  of  the  design  of  baptism,  131. 

Opinions  not  to  be  received  as  testimony,  62. 
Oriental  version's  use  of  baptizo,  38. 
Origin  of  the  trial,  6. 

Pedobaptist  charged  with  high  treason,  8.  Changed  the  action  of  bap- 
tism, 8,  90—162,  256. 

Pentecost,  baptisms  on  day  of,  227. 

Positive  duties  learned  from  literal  meaning  of  words,  18.  Not  learned 
from  figurative  use,  22. 

Prepositions  construed  with  baptizo,  239. 

Presbyterian  testimony  concerning  baptizo,  60. 

Principles  of  law  applicable  to  the  controversy,  14,  303.  Examination 
of,  .135. 

Proselyte  baptisms,  52,  201. 

Quaker  testimony  concerning  baptizo,  75,  209. 

Sc-hinueker,  Prof.,  on  the  baptisms  of  the  N.  Testament,  147.   Review  of 

his  argument,  211. 
Sprinkling  not  given  as  a  translation  of  baptizo  for  1800  years.  36.     Of 

pure  water,  never  commanded  for  any  purpose,  287. 

Translators,  their  testimony  examined,  142,  195. 
Versions,  translation  of  baptizo  in  different,  38 — 52. 
Western  versions,  translation  of  baptizo  in  different,  46. 


